All right.

We are we are recording everybody, just so you know.

Grayson Hillary, I'm gonna get started.

Council, my right, I'm gonna get started.

Good good evening, everybody, and welcome.

So we're gonna get started for the final budget meeting of the proposed 2026 budget.

It's called to order tonight.

And I'll ask the clerk to call the roll.

Mr.

Callahan, Ms.

Grim C.

Smith.

Present.

Ms.

Quyatek.

Present.

Ms.

Laird.

Present.

Ms.

Leonard present.

Ms.

Wilhelm.

Present.

And Mr.

Cologne.

Present.

Mr.

Callahan did message me.

He's running about 10 minutes late.

So he'll come in during the public comment period.

So for tonight at this final budget meeting, members of council by a motion.

There will be a lot of procedural things going on up here tonight by a motion, followed by a second, and then we'll take it to a vote.

May amend what the administration and the mayor proposed for the 2026 budget bills.

Members of council can also amend the mayor's proposed.

We will vote on pardon.

We will vote on the proposed 2026 budget either as stands or as amended if we amend it tonight at our final reading of the budget, which will be at the December 16th City Council meeting.

That meeting will start at 7 p.m.

on Tuesday, December 16th.

I'll provide the procedure for tonight's meeting.

I'll start with public comment.

We have about a dozen people who had signed up.

I'll remind everybody that our council rules it's a five-minute time limit for anyone who'd like to speak.

I ask that you keep any comments related to the budget and budget amendments as this is a budget hearing.

Anyone who had signed up will go first in the orders they're signed up.

And then I'll go around the room as is typical and invite anyone who didn't sign up but wants to uh make comment on the budget.

I'll record I will then recognize members of council who want to offer amendments to the 2026 budget bill.

And as many are probably aware, we have six proposed amendments from a member of city council.

If there is an amendment put on the floor, I will accept a motion to consider that amendment, followed by a second.

And then if there is a second, then we'll discuss it where council talks amongst ourselves and may ask for clarification from someone who put the amendment forward.

To my left is our solicitor, the council attorney Stephanie Stewart, who may be here to answer questions.

Uh, if anyone has questions related to procedure, legality, things like that.

Members of the administration are here also.

Our business administrator Eric Evans is at the administration table.

If there is no second on an amendment, then the amendment is not considered.

So if something's introduced and two members don't put it up for consideration, then it dies without a vote.

After discussion on anything that has a second, I'll ask the clerk to call the roll on the amendment after everyone has a chance to weigh in on that.

Procedurally, to increase a budget line item, it requires five votes in favor for it to pass.

So it needs five of the seven to increase a budget line item.

If the amendment decreases a line item, it's a vote of at least four in favor to require to pass.

So effectively, a motion needs five so to pass because the budget has to be balanced.

If I take five dollars from over here, I need to put five dollars over here.

That's how that works.

As mentioned, the second reading of the budget will take place on December 16th, and then uh the budget will be amended if needed.

So we'll start with public comment.

Uh please again.

Now I know what we're talking about tonight, so there may be some different opinions shared up at the lectern.

I do ask members of the public, members of council to be respectful of everyone speaking.

I don't know what everyone's gonna say.

I just ask that we we as council, we as the public, the administration, everyone who came out tonight.

Please keep your comments to me as the chair or council as a whole, as this is a council meeting for the budget, and and I ask everyone to be respectful of each other in here tonight because I plan on being respectful of everybody.

Thank you.

So we'll start uh as I had mentioned with public comment.

And our first person signed up is Scott Slingerlin.

And uh whoever comes up, if you don't mind, just giving your name for the record.

To my right is our city clerk, Mr.

Miller.

He keeps all the uh minutes for us.

So if you don't mind stating your name before you give your comments, good evening, Scott Slingerland with CAT Coalition for Appropriate Transportation.

Um I'm here to speak up in support of the important things that the community recovery funding program is doing for the residents in the city of Bethlehem.

Uh, we are one of the many uh programs funded by the CRF.

Um, while I 100% support the fire department and their role in public safety and emergency response, I also completely support hiring additional firefighters as needed.

Um, and the application, Ms.

Crampsy's mentioned uh to apply for the safer grant and get more funding for the fire department.

I support that as well.

CRF funding supports local nonprofit organizations like CAT to do our work with community programs that offer transportation safety outreach and education.

With the help of city CRF funding, CAT provides bicycle education programs in local schools to parents and children at the CAT Bicycle Cooperative and at citywide events in partnership with the city police department, recreation department, and often the fire department as well.

In 2024, we reached 1,663 youth participants at 42 bicycle education events.

Our holiday bikes program going on right now in its eighth year has provided over 1,000 bicycles, helmets, and bicycle education for families with financial hardship.

With the help of the city CRF funding, CAP provides opportunities for marginalized individuals, low income, unhoused, in addiction recovery, and/or undergoing mental health treatment to volunteer and engage side by side with the broader community, which has also provided them with self-sufficient transportation.

CAP provides this service year-round, four days a week to over 150 individuals and supports over 2,400 visits to the CAT Bicycle Cooperative annually.

With the help of city CRF funding, CAP provides ongoing advocacy for active transportation through the city's CTAC committee, the city's climate action plan, Blue Zones Bethlehem, and the Link Trails Network working to bolster a web of all street trails that go places, including the upcoming connection of the South Bethlehem Greenway, the DL Trail, and Minocasy Way Trail.

So therefore, 2026 CRF funding is especially critical for all these programs.

And additionally for us as we expand our operations back into downtown Bethlehem on Walnut Street.

Support from City Bethlehem is vital for families, for adults, for youth to experience the joy of biking, the utility of public transit, and the peace of mind to be able to cross the street safely in a crosswalk.

CAT needs your support, Bethlehem Community needs your support.

Please support CRF funding for community organizations like CAT.

And also, I hope you can find a way to also support the fire department to do their needed work.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Our next speaker is Becca.

I believe it's Eichelberger.

Apologies if I mispronounced it.

Thank you.

Um, yes, my name's Becca, B E K A H.

Um, and I work at Touchstone Theater in Southside Bethlehem.

Um, I'm here today to express some concerns about the budget amendments as they are proposed specifically around the cuts to the community recovery fund.

Um, I like the gentleman before me very much in support of increasing um the number of firefighters we have in the city.

Um, but the work of the community recovery fund is deeply essential for so many nonprofits in the city of Bethlehem.

Uh Touchstone's been very grateful to be a beneficiary of this program.

Uh, and with this city support, we have grown our Festival Unbound Community Arts Initiative.

Uh, Festival Unbound works to bring our community together through art while also informing, say, the conversation between neighbors and between neighbors and local leaders like yourselves.

Um, it's really hard to quantify um all that festival has done for the city in the past few years, but I will give it a try.

Um, in 2023 and 2024, we've hosted 26 events as part of Festival Unbound, including community music jams featuring musicians from around the area, explorations of nature on our beautiful nature trails, writing workshops, book clubs, story sharings, and live theater.

Um, over 5,000 people participated in these 26 events over the past uh two years, which is equivalent to nearly 7% of the city's population engaging in the arts and civic discussion for the city.

Um, and the programming really helps community members feel heard and represented.

Uh, we've gotten feedback like sharing stories as a group, naturally fostered community, helping us empathize with and connecting to each other.

I've been exposed to art and ideas that I wouldn't otherwise be exposed to.

I saw areas of Bethlehem I'd never been to before.

It gives people folks the opportunity to tell and listen to stories through both conversation and art about who we are, what we do, our interests, our struggles, and our dreams.

I think having the arts take a leadership position on the civic values and future development of the city of Bethlehem is an important function of the arts.

Um, I think, however, FUBS or Festival Unbound's greatest strength is the way it elevates community concerns to local leaders like yourself.

Uh, for example, our festival in 2023 focused on the region's affordable housing crisis, which I know you guys hear a lot about.

Um, as part of that year's program, Touchstone hosted a regional convening of municipal leaders, residents, academics, nonprofit professionals uh to talk about some regional solutions to this issue.

And the convening that Touchstone hosted was the first time many of these people met.

Um, and those connections are still in place today.

And the things discussed at that meeting are still informing policy around affordable housing for the region.

Um, and the book 2026 budget increases the allocation for the community recovery fund, which is deeply essential in this time, as so many nonprofits are struggling to meet the growing need of for the services that they offer.

Um, and we're gonna need that support as we've seen um cuts to the federal government budgets, um, the whole fiasco with the state budget where we didn't get any money for like five months.

Um, so I ask that as you are considering these changes and helping to find a way to uh fully staff our fire department to not do so at the expense of essential community services.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next person signed up is George.

I think it starts with DZ.

I apologize from Maple Street.

Uh George Sopinka, 738 Maple Street.

Sorry.

Um, I'm here to talk about supporting the amendment for four additional firefighters.

I live one block from Linden Market, and I could tell you that EMS, police and fire department are passing by all the time, most of the time when their lights going and the sirens going.

So they're definitely working and they're working hard.

Um, I like to see four additional firefighters so that it's adequately staffed, and um, you know, when it comes to emergencies, you have the right people and enough people.

In addition, um, it's obvious that this city is gonna become like Manhattan.

So at the size of Manhattan, we're gonna need four firefighters anyway.

So I would like to see four fighters.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Our next speaker is Bob Rapp Jr.

And Bob Rapp Jr.

Um here on behalf of BES and our unhoused folks here in the city of Bethlehem in support of the community recovery fund.

When I first heard about the issue that came up, and judging from um Mr.

Clone's first remarks this this evening.

Um, I'm a little irritated, I guess, in the fact that we've come to a place where we have to argue against each other for certain funding.

And that's where it seems like it's come down to tonight.

It seems to me you have two specific different issues that both need addressing, and yet here we come in opposition to one another.

I'm not here to argue against firefighters.

I think they do an awesome job in the city of Bethlehem.

They're they're awesome servants of our communities everywhere.

And so my talk tonight is just in support of the recovery fund.

Many times the folks that I referred to are given the title of these people, and they have no voice.

They have no presence in our community.

First point I'd like to make out tonight is they are our street neighbors.

And operating the shelter here in Bethlehem.

Less than 15% of our folks that grace our doorstep come from elsewhere.

These are folks who have many of them were born here, went to school here, some have gone to college here, some have raised families here.

And yet, because of uh issues in their lives, ended up without a home.

Last year, historically, um, over the years, the number has grown.

Last year, throughout the shelter season, we averaged 65 folks a night.

From 2020 to 2025, the increase in our shelters has been 128%.

And that number keeps continuing to rise.

This not only affects the shelter system, it affects every facet of transitional living in the city of Bethlehem, all the way up to being permanently housed.

And so, with that housing crisis in mind, like someone mentioned, until we tackle that big issue, we are going to be warehousing folks in shelters and in transitional housing units.

And because of that, our numbers are historically higher than they've ever been.

And we were at our limits in funding prior to that.

And so it makes it almost impossible to continue operations.

And so there will be cuts in the future if we keep cutting funding.

Historically here in Bethlehem, most of that burden would be based in organizations that are or faith-based churches mostly to uh contribute much of the physical and financial support necessary to be able to have a shelter with a decline or failure, depending on what you look at of the mainline church and society.

Cities are left with the question on how to best cope with the homeless issue.

Coupled with a housing crisis and the fact that we keep speaking of affordable housing and we leave out entry level housing, which is what is most needed.

The numbers are going to keep growing.

48% of our population last year, 48% were first time homeless persons that came to our shelter.

So we currently work on a budget too, right?

Average folks right now are 65 in shelter.

We still have 30 to 40 folks in encampments here in the city of Bethlehem.

Our our funding, our budget will go to the board here shortly, with 71% of our money's coming from foundation grants, corporate grants, or faith-based organizations, heavy on the faith-based side.

So it's only a small percentage of our funding that comes from government entities.

And yet we still need every dollar we get.

The city of Bethlehem here in the recent past has done some awesome work in supporting our shelter, applying for grants that we cannot apply for as individual organizations, helping to support having the shelter open for for lengths of time that were not available in the past.

Um, but but we need to continue.

As part of that work, we need to figure out this housing crisis so that folks can flow through our system, which is how it's supposed to happen, so we can get them to transitional housing and then back into permanent housing as quickly as possible to reduce the numbers in in beds, or at least increase the flow of folks back into permanency so that they too can be a contributing member of society uh paying taxes and helping to solve some of the issues that we talk about here tonight.

Thank you, Mr.

Rapp.

I we do have a list, so I want to keep on with the list.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mike O'Hare.

Hello everyone.

I um thank you all for being here.

Um I favor a more moderated approach to this this issue, and I think it's really the approach the administration was talking about was to use the unused salaries of the open eight open positions for the Bethlehem Fire Department to try to encourage uh retention and recruitment.

Right now, I think there is people signed up, they don't even have enough people to go to the fire academy.

So uh maybe some of those unused salaries could be used to reach out to find out, you know, for qualified people and get them to attend the academy and maybe to help uh retain some of the firefighters that we have in the city, and I think that would, and I do think that was the approach the administration had, and then they were going to do a study uh starting next year.

They were getting uh different uh uh people to you know participate in the study to see what the actual needs of the fire department are, which I'm sure they'll find they do need additional positions.

But why not fill the open positions now before you're adding four more positions that you probably won't be able to fill within a couple years anyway?

But more concerning to me was an email I got this afternoon from forwarded to me from Mount Airy Neighborhood Association and probably went to a lot of different community groups across the city from Miss Collins, the director of the uh community and development economic I can't, wherever that department is.

Um, she sent this email, but it was totally out of context.

And the email made it sound like city council just wants to cut funding to these nonprofit groups, willy-nilly for no reason because they're trying to save money.

It lacked the context that the reason they're looking for additional funding was to supply firefighter positions, and so I thought that was very inappropriate that Miss Collins would send that email out.

She's acting more like the mayor than the mayor, who isn't even here, and so I just felt that that was inappropriate that that's kind of crossing a line.

And if you uh if you're looking for, you know, uh you're fully funded as a nonprofit.

What difference does it make if your building burns down?

Unless you go to the non-operating Bethlehem co-op, you could use that building maybe.

So um, I just felt that that was wrong.

Um, also, um, I think there's probably been a little bit of mischief on both sides, but I would just ask that um everybody have above board communications, get to the solution that we need to get to.

Make sure we make sure we're protected as a city.

I don't ever want to see what happens, what happened on Sunday.

You have a fire in the city, you have two other uh fire calls, and there's nobody to respond.

That should never happen in our city.

So thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you, Mr.

O'Hare.

Our next speaker is John Ruff.

John Roof, 15 year veteran of BFD.

I grew up in this city.

I talked to you guys a couple times before.

I've seen a sea go through tons of changes.

It's great.

It's great to see where our city's going.

We're growing.

The only thing that hasn't been growing is the fire department and shrinking.

I counted on my phone over 20.

There's 25 or 26 overtimes since last Wednesday, as of tonight that we had.

So obviously, there's a need.

Always robin from Peter to pay Paul with our overtime budgets between 1.2 million uh two years ago, and pretty sure we're gonna break a million this year.

As you can see, we have a big turnout.

We're a brotherhood, we're there for everybody.

We don't care about race, color, creed, religion, or anything.

We're there to help you in your in your worst times, your times of need.

That's what we do.

I thank council that's been working to try to figure out a way how to how to fix the situation.

As we say goodbye to I I think there's two of you guys are leaving, I'm not sure.

Um we thank you for your diligent work while you're here.

But before you go, I challenge you to leave this city better than when you got in.

Make the right call.

Vote, help us out, help us be able to help the community even more than what we do.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Roof.

Our next speaker is Lou Jimenez.

Good evening, Lou Jimenez.

Um 735 president.

Uh, thank you to all the speakers tonight.

Uh, and I appreciate everything city council has done and being receptive to our requests and our advocacy.

Uh, tonight I heard I heard a lot of good things and a lot of things that we have in common.

You know, um, I heard a lot of numbers about events and and things like that, and I heard, you know, that we shouldn't be arguing about essential services.

You know, I've heard the key words essential community services.

CRF is very essential.

So is the fire department.

We talk about increasing numbers.

I'm gonna give you a number for the fire department.

We ran about 2500 calls a couple decades ago, and present day we run twice as much.

5,000 calls.

Yet our staffing has gone down.

We talk about affordable housing, and we talk about, you know, we talk about our unhow unhoused.

Well, as firefighters, we see our unhoused every day.

We respond to medical calls, uh, various types of fires in these areas, and we've established relationships with them as well.

So they're seen by us.

What we're looking for is to be seen by our city.

We talk about taking away from CRF and placing in the fire department.

At the end of the day, we should have everybody happy.

Our fire department staffing is low, it's low than it ever has been.

We're asking for four positions, and that's just a start.

But the thing is, is where's the money gonna come from?

You know, we talk about Rob from Peter to pay Paul.

That's how we fund our overtime.

That's how we fund our lack of staffing, you know.

Um, but we have something called the Rainy Day Fund, what I understand, and it's higher than it's ever been.

And I'm sure we're gonna hear some excuses as to why we can't do that, and that's pretty sad.

We've paved sidewalks with this, we've bought fire trucks, you know.

We've done all different types of projects in this city, yet we cannot hire four additional firefighters under that rainy day fund.

Isn't that what it's for?

A rainy day.

We're having our rainy day.

You know, we talk about housing, they're gonna be they're gonna be demolishing the Marvine Pembroke village, and they're gonna be doubling occupancy size, over 400 units.

Those units are not going to be built like the units that are there now.

They're gonna be built, they're cheap.

They're gonna be built cheaply.

And you know what that's gonna take?

More firefighters.

You know, I shared a I shared a lot of uh personal thoughts and feelings on my social media post because I only get five minutes to come up here.

But we're human, just like just like unhoused people and just like unprivileged people, we're all human beings too.

And when I said we were being treated like numbers in our last meeting, I meant it.

You know, we're nothing, we're not we're not just a budget line item.

Okay, we're not asking for four firefighters just because we need them.

We need help.

Look at what happened at Pints and Pies the other day.

That happens more than you think.

That happens frequently.

Every time we have a fire.

We have one other call.

Our department is pretty much done and spoken for.

What would have happened if there would have been a true emergency that day?

I'm not sure.

We don't have enough people.

But I tell you what I have.

I have 383,000 of my brothers and sisters that would come into this room and tell you exactly what I'm saying.

You know, this is a problem in Bethlehem.

This is a problem in the state of Pennsylvania.

The problem that we have is that we do not have our subject matter experts looking at our fire department staffing.

Instead, they're looking at a budget line item.

Our city's growing.

Our city deserves the fire protection they need because guess what?

Every nonprofit that we go to, every nonprofit, we've probably gone to and provided service for.

So at the end of the day, we're deserving of these four positions.

Our city's deserving of this protection.

And I ask you kindly to consider adding the four positions to the Bethlehem Fire Department.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Jimenez.

Our next speaker signed up, Robert M.

Bowden.

Robert and Bowden, I'm one of the VPs for local 735.

I'd like to thank our brothers and sisters for attending this meeting tonight to show support for our cause.

Um, this staffing issue for the city of Bethlehem and our fire department, our local has been going on for quite some time.

Um what I want everybody else who spoke here tonight to understand is that I understand what you're asking for, but at the same time, when you need somebody, when you need someone to come for you to help you, every one of your associations, we're the ones that come.

We don't have enough people to do this job continuously.

Two chiefs ago, a grievance was filed by a group of officers that led to an overtime policy change.

That change was made after we were threatened with a withdrawal of the grievance.

Said grievance was um, excuse me.

Said grievance was not withdrawn.

At that time, a member was threatened with discipline.

We did not withdraw that.

Overtime policy change, what led to what we know now and what we seen was an overwhelming amount of retirements based on how our overtime was administered.

That's why we sit where we are today with our staffing levels.

This staffing shortage was engineered from day one and beyond.

If you go back and look at the dates and the numbers that we could give that, I don't have enough time in five minutes to explain.

I can spell it out very easily for you.

The city's business administrator knew about this and knew it was coming because he was part of it.

I sat in these chambers, councilwoman Leon asked one of our former chiefs if we needed firefighters.

That chief was Chief Aki.

You asked him, he said no.

That was a blatant lie.

We all in this department knew it.

Overtime budgets are being used as a shell game.

We're using unfilled salaries that are being budgeted that shouldn't be used to cover down and pay for overtime.

That's not a balanced budget.

If I see a line item and it says overtime, then I would look at that and say that that's what our overtime is.

Just because we have unfilled seats sitting here in these fire trucks, doesn't mean we pull from that to pay overtime.

Does that really make sense to any of you guys sitting there?

Doesn't make sense to me.

I can guarantee every one of these other firefighters that are sitting here would tell you the same thing because they're all dealing with it.

Just like my president said, it's not just Bethlehem.

That's not the state of Pennsylvania, that's every fire department across this country.

Another thing I want you to take in consideration if you haven't looked at it yet, is the fact that when we talk about overtime, we look at money and line items in a budget.

It's not about the dollar amount.

What you're not seeing is the man hours that go into it.

As we've had these retirements, we've had to hire.

As we've hired, we'd hired younger guys who make less than those guys that were here that retired.

Now all those young guys are getting paid less to do this.

They're still working the man hours.

It's not about salaries, it's not about money.

It's the hours we're working, we're putting in to serve this city, the people, all the people that sat here and talk tonight in these communities.

All we're doing is asking for some type of creativeness.

We don't want to pull money from any other department's budgets.

You can go to all the other bigger cities in the United States.

FDNY does this down in Philadelphia.

They have programs that we could be taking small, small percentages to some of the college tuitions around here if we wanted to, because we provide a lot of service to them for what we do for the community.

We respond to the colleges in this city a lot.

And that's an understatement.

If I could be any better at describing it, I want to let you know this meeting here, this everything that we spoke about, this is the beginning.

The councilmen and councilwomen sitting here now, the ones coming after you.

This is not the end.

You are going to see more of us to push for this in the future.

Regarding our staffing, this is just a beginning.

We are not going to go away.

This is not right.

And as my president said earlier, we are not a number.

We are a human being.

We're just asking to be treated like it.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next signed up is Shelby Carr.

I do want to recognize apologies.

Mr.

Callahan joined us a couple speakers ago.

Hi, um, my name is Shelby Car.

I'm here representing Menokasy Farm Project.

Um, here to speak on behalf of the community recovery fund, to which um some budget amendments tonight could cut some funding from.

Um, I'm aware that cutting funds from the CRF to pay for more city firefighters is only one option to pay for those firefighters.

But to be blunt, I find any proposed cuts to the funds extremely troubling, especially at a time when local nonprofits have been experiencing a scarcity of funding opportunities and an alarming rate of funding and programmatic cuts on the federal, state, and local levels.

The optics of borrowing from a fund set aside to support local nonprofits is especially when the safer grant that would be hypothetically repaying borrowed funds is not a surefire thing.

Um, as a community partner who works for an organization that has received CRF funding in the past, ask that these funds stay intact and are not used to fund anything else but for what they were initially set aside for.

Um, many of the city officials who I've met through this fund or who I've worked with in the past were really excited to direct the initial ARPA funds to the CRF.

Um, many of these people were also excited and proud that the city and its council were invested in making the CRF stable enough that it could survive for many years to come to consider cutting it to pay for other costs really stings, as many of you were the very people who champion this funding and its longevity.

So I urge you all to find a solution that leaves the CRF funds intact as is and also gets the fire department the stuff that they so desperately need.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That exhausts the list of who had signed up in advance.

So as I mentioned at the top, I'll go around the room.

Is there anyone to the left who want to make comment who hasn't had a chance?

Sir in front.

I'm one of the labor leaders with local 735.

I wanted to express my gratitude for everybody that's come out tonight, um, firefighters and community partners alike.

It has spoken in support of the fire department, community recovery fund, and the city.

Um, there's a passion for service in this room that makes me proud.

Um, everybody here cares about people, and that's why we're here.

Um, one word that I've heard a lot is colleagues.

Um, and like I said, we're colleagues and caring for people, and I don't want anything that's happening here tonight to diminish anybody's ability to do that.

My concern is that our role as a fire department has been and will continue to be diminished.

Um to the people of this community, you're safe because your public servants make the difference with their effort.

There are shortcomings in the system, but I'll push a wheelbarrow to your home if that's what it takes.

It doesn't matter if I'm getting paid or not, we're coming for you when you call.

You're safe because we make the difference.

We've talked a lot about the impact of finance and something troubling happened last month that I wanted to share with you.

Um, if our pleasing concerns aren't enough for you, um, maybe a lawsuit would be.

So in Sterling, Illinois, two years ago, a fire lieutenant was killed in a fire.

He lived for 15 minutes in a basement.

And the litigations for that lawsuit, wrongful death lawsuit just ended last week.

His widow and two daughters were awarded 31.5 million dollars because his fire department was not following command procedure, safety procedures were staffed appropriately.

My question is will you as a counsel or administration take responsibility if one of us is killed?

Or will you be in a courtroom telling my wife and my widow that it was my fault and trying to save yourselves the money?

Um there are things that need to happen here, and my hope is that regardless of what happens tonight as we move forward, our role can be empowered and we can feel safe.

Uh that's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Comment who hasn't had a chance.

And then Mr.

Royston, you'll be next.

My name is Sean Telerico, and I have been in Bethlam since 1985, and I wasn't going to speak tonight, but then somebody mentioned colleges, universities.

Um, without them, Moravian College, of which I was the chief of police for 25 years, would have been a lot of trouble.

We needed them, and we continue to need them, and I appreciate the fact that arts are important, that entertainment is important, that hospitals are important, but I just want to remind people from a passionate point of view, because I don't have the numbers and I don't have the eloquence to talk about what you do in terms of overtime and things like that.

But without them, we're not going to have art, and we're not going to have music fest, and you're not going to have the things that require people to be protected.

Something burns, who are you going to call?

If somebody needs help, who are you going to call?

Public safety is important.

Police departments are important.

Fire departments are just as important.

And by that I mean people of the city of Bethlehem coming and speaking to this.

And that's why I'm doing that.

But understand that without them, when the balloon goes up, somebody's got to bring it back down.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Royston.

Hi, my name's Doug Royston.

Uh, 421 2nd Avenue.

And uh I'll just run through the first part uh that I wrote down before I came and heard all the wonderful things being said here today.

But first of all, I'm here uh to just make sure that everybody knows that the ice house is really appreciative of the finances that uh has been provided over the uh last two years for the with the community uh recovery fund.

They've been very important.

We are at a place now where we're having about 300 shows at the ice house uh between our work with the with the ice house performing arts uh collaborative and uh the other arts organizations, about 300 shows in that nice old mill down there by the by the Lehigh River, and uh we we are very proud of what we're what we're doing.

Uh in essence, the uh ice house performing arts collaborative is dedicated to growing the next generation of artists in this arts town, and I want to use I I want to use the word arts town as many times as possible tonight, because that's what we've become as thousands and thousands of shows a year go on in this town called Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and it is also very interesting that we now with UNESCO um uh Moravian uh historic designation, and with the new uh building that ArtsQuest is putting over on the south side.

We have just ready to become branded on the whole on the east coast as an arts town, the one that we should be.

That's what we're up against here tonight, and that's fine.

Uh the all the I'm I'm part of all the little groups that create this varied artistic cultural destination, and it is the future of this town to have that grow the way it has for the last 45 years that I have actually been part of it, and I just want to make that one thing very clear.

It's not just about the money.

Uh receiving these funds, uh the arts exist in a very fragile state, both emotionally and financially.

Getting this money is not only financial for us, it tells us the city is with us, and how quickly this people can drop back and say, I guess I'm alone.

I guess the city is not with us anymore.

Uh is is what we're up against now.

We we exist on a shoestring to keep the growth and the variety of the arts in this town alive, which will at some point along the way truly be leveraged economically on a broader scale.

And uh, but but you know that's what I was gonna say.

All right, that's on my paper.

But but I'm sitting here listening to the firefighters.

I mean, how can I say anything against what the firefighters are saying?

Uh, how in the world did we get uh in in up against the firefighters?

Who how did that happen?

Under what circumstances did we suddenly find ourselves at odds with the firefighters?

That's crazy.

Uh no one's at odds about the firefighters.

Here's the arts community, and here it's growing, and here the fire, two different things.

How did this happen?

My understanding was that this money was allocated for nonprofits, and that's what, and that's uh that's how it was intended to be spent.

But I certainly uh the firefighters need to have uh uh the taxes raised in Bethlehem.

If the situation they're describing is true, uh, that has to be a raise in track taxes and not taken away from this fund.

Um it's it's I don't see how we wound up being at odds.

How did that happen?

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr.

Royson.

Mr.

Callahan, you weren't here.

I'd asked everyone to be respectful of each speaker.

Hold applause and comments.

Everyone has all of council has.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in the wide center who has anything else they want to add?

Yes, in the back.

Again, I came here not planning on speaking.

Uh last time I was here, I told everybody that I've been a citizen of City of Bethlehem for almost 76 years.

Um my family has been in the law enforcement and now fire uh department uh my entire life.

Uh my dad was a copier before I was born.

Now my son is on the fire department, and I've had uh an ex-husband and a daughter in law enforcement.

Uh every day, it's not something that is constantly on your mind, but it does hit you every once in a while when they're at work.

Are they gonna come home?

And that's the thing that always got got me that's the most, and you can't let them know that because they have a job to do.

Um, but I just want you to know that I don't want somebody to not come home when there's not a reason for it.

It should there should never be a reason.

Uh they need the help, they need the equipment.

Um, I just want everybody to come home and be safe.

Um, I know a lot of the guys, some of them don't know me, uh, a lot of them don't know me, but uh I just want that um out there.

I want everybody to come home safe, and I want everybody that's in a situation where they have where the guys and women have to deal with it.

I want them to be safe too.

You have to stop and think about that.

If they're understaffed, that means they can't do their job to save the citizens of our city.

Okay, thank you.

Ma'am, do you mind giving your name?

Carol Anders.

Thank you, Ms.

Anderson.

Was there anyone else in the center who wants to make comment?

I'll turn to the right.

Was there anyone to the right?

Anyone that's in the hallway want to make comment.

Just want to make sure.

Okay, thank you, everybody.

That's going to conclude our public comment.

So and again, I thank you as I chaired at the top of the meeting for the courtesy and respect that everybody showed each other.

I will reiterate what I'd said at the top of the meeting.

I hope we as a council could an administration could continue to show each other that respect.

A lot of the folks that are in here tonight were here when we had an eight-hour meeting uh a little bit ago.

Tonight you're here to hear us vote.

Because at the end of the day, these amendments pass or fail based on the votes.

So I'd like to move forward.

I didn't, you know, and sake of why everyone came out tonight.

Everyone have opportunity to give their comments, ask their questions, and we'll get to the voting.

And I'd like to get home on today's date.

So we'll continue on.

So we'll now discuss and then vote on the council proposed amendments to the administration's 2026 budget.

As had been previously presented tonight, we have six council proposed amendments that have been introduced by councilwoman Grace Cramsey Smith.

What I'd what I'd like to do, and uh, I'll make a motion rather than I think it'd be more effective and give councilman Crams Smith an opportunity because we're going to be talking about all six, and I think having con I might reference amendment one or someone might want to talk about.

So I like to make a motion, like we do at other council meetings to group amendments one through six together as a group.

And then um, if there's a second, we'll have discussion and I'll give further thoughts.

So I make them before I kind of read them and go through.

I'd like to make a motion to consider amendments one through six as a group.

If there's a second, then we'll have discussion.

Can you clarify the purpose of that or what what process will be if we group them?

If there's a second, then we'll have discussion on it.

Second.

Second by councilwoman Wilhelm.

So just so now we're up for discussion on it.

So I'll clarify for councilwoman.

So this way we could have one.

I will I will give you the floor in a moment, councilwoman.

I'll I'll read kind of the what Mr.

Miller normally does.

How do we do at a normal council meeting and then give you the floor to introduce the amendments?

All six of them, reference the page number, the amount, what it is that you want to change for each one, then we can have a discussion about all six all together.

Otherwise, we're going one through six, voting on one through six one at a time.

Once we vote on amendment one, it's done.

When we get to amendment five, we're not talking about one through four.

This gives us an opportunity to have a broader conversation about all six all together.

And if someone wants to reference um, you know amendment three and amendment two all together, it's it's one broader conversation.

When it's time to vote, if any member of council wants to vote on one, because essentially all six amendments are to accomplish the same goal, fair to say.

So if someone wants to then uncouple a particular amendment to vote on that in practical sense, not more than one of these amendments could pass if that's the will of council, since they're all you know, have the same goal in mind.

So having one broad discussion, if there is the will of council is then to support one particular amendment, we would be able counsel or whomever on council can make the motion to remove whichever particular amendment after everyone's discussed, give their thoughts, feedback, ask their questions to vote on that particular amendment that someone would be willing to support, and then the other the rest of the group would remain, or if none are removed from the group, we would just have one vote.

I mean, uh that's up to council and see where the discussion goes.

But that way we're having I hope I'm making sense and I'm happy to clarify as we have discussion, but then we're just discussing all six amendments together rather than going one by one by one.

Okay.

And then that's my feedback on it.

We're still up for discussion, councilwoman.

If you have discussion on that, is that we have three amendments that are dealing with hiring firefighters in July, which um I believe perhaps we can get um Chief Griffin's input, but I believe that is most feasible.

And then we have three to hire the firefighters in January.

The problem being we we're not sure that we can get them to the fire academy in January.

So then that would be a mute, those three amendments would be a mute point if we cannot do that.

Do you know what I'm saying?

So I don't want to address the question.

I'm just I'm just thinking, can we get clarification?

Is it still a possibility to have if if any amendment passes to hire them in January that we could get them to the academy in January?

So I'll so the discussion is on grouping them together, and I think we we will have typical discussion, like we do.

And that question that you just posed can be asked of Chief Griffin.

Um, when we still have discussion on the floor, procedurally, what we would do is talk about all of them.

Someone can ask Chief or whoever any questions, and then if there's a particular amendment, because as I said at the top of the meeting, effectively you need the support of five council members to pass anything.

So that particular amendment would be uncoupled from the group.

We'd vote on instead of having six votes, we'd have one vote on the group or two votes if there's one amendment that has support.

So that so your question still stands, it would just be during discussion a matter of okay.

If you're gonna eliminate three from consideration, which of the remaining three do you want to consider?

Because there's there's obviously options here.

Did that give some clarification, councilwoman?

Somewhat.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

Mr.

Callahan.

But we're still gonna I don't mind having discussion on all six of them at one time, but we're still gonna have individual votes on each one of them.

If if there's a further motion to separate them into individual amendments, because again, we're not in in practice, we're not passing six amendments.

If if you know the will of council will be what the wolf council is, but if an amendment passes, you can't pass a another amendment that is the same thing.

So it would be to essentially identify a singular amendment to vote on and then vote on the rest of the group, or else we're having six individual votes.

You can't pass, we can't pass all six amendments because that they all ultimately satisfy the same objective or the same outcome or involve this moving the same money around.

Did you want to clarify anything, attorney steward?

Can I I can try with your microphone, please?

Sorry.

So essentially we're starting with a pot of six to discuss generally because there's some overlap in the six, and then if somebody wants to take one out and vote on it, they can make that motion.

So you would do that one by one as you kind of talk through and see, you know, is there of these six, is there one that a council member would like to advance for a vote?

We'll vote, we'll have to vote on the group regardless.

So there's we're voting on the amendments.

I guess it's just a matter of I don't want to go one by one for something we can't pass more than one of, if that makes sense.

Yeah, yeah.

I just I just would uh I mean, I I just hope that we're not as important to all of us, you know, to all of us up here, and everybody here.

And I just think that um obviously public comment, which everybody thought was going to be the lengthiest part of the meeting to me, probably uh is over with.

And um I I don't think this meeting the way it is right now is gonna last more than another hour and a half to two hours.

So I don't think there's any rush uh for us to get out of here.

At least I I hope there isn't any rush to get out of here.

Um so we also have the right, uh correct me if I'm wrong, to still uh if these are if this is grouped together and it's the will of council to group them together and vote on them together and then or maybe separate them into two different groups.

We still have the right individually uh to um propose amendments here at council.

And I spoke about that this week, Mr.

Callahan.

Correct.

The and um well, one, I will be respectful of everyone's time, I'll be transparent about that, but I also think it's a bit redundant if I'm being honest, to have six individual votes when in practice you can't pass more than one thing.

So I'm just trying to if there's a way to identify a singular amendment that has the support of five people to do that during discussion and then go from there.

Because if you if you pass amendment two, you don't get ever you don't ever get to amendment three.

If you if amendment one through five fail by default, you're stuck on amendment six as we eliminate them.

So this gives us an opportunity to just have the discussion and hear from council where the um where potential support is.

But if amendment two passed, right, then someone can put out uh um a proposal um to get rid of the the the remaining four or five.

We don't have to move on from there.

I just think it's really important that we take each individual um amendment and have a vote on each individual amendment as we're going along.

It's only six amendments, it's not gonna take an extensive amount of time.

And if we do have a situation where amendment one passes, great.

Um I uh I'll propose, and I'm sure I'll get a second from uh someone up here that we don't need the other five amendments, and and we'll be out of here in a half hour and an hour, you know.

Again, Mr.

Callan, this isn't about time, this is about procedure.

So well, I understand where we're coming from, so those agree to disagree.

I just put the motion out there.

We're we're in the discussion phase for those following along, and I hope I've been succinct in my explanation.

Um, any other discussion for members of council, I'll start with councilwoman Lair.

Just uh clarification.

So if we do not group these for discussion, we cannot say um I really like this part of two compared to this part of four, correct?

Because we'd only be talking about two.

We wouldn't be allowed to reference anything in comparison to the other amendments that we're passing.

I think it's most effective to group them if we want to do that and offer and offer comparison while we're jumping around and um comparing and contrasting.

Okay, and additionally, um, if people pull out multiple amendments to vote on once we get to the voting portion.

If we would pass one, and then someone would for whatever reason call out a another one to vote on.

What happens if we pass two?

Because they they don't overlap, they conflict.

That's I mean, that's that's that's remarkably impractical, councilwoman.

Okay, yeah.

So what what I we would have discussion and I would advise against it is what would happen.

So in terms of yeah, yeah, I just I was like I I get what I understand where you're coming from, but that's why we have discussion to talk through things uh uh while things are on the floor.

Thank you.

Yeah, councilwoman Leo.

I was it was a similar question that I was gonna ask.

It makes sense to me for ease of discussion, not necessarily ease of voting for but for ease of discussion.

If we want to reference multiple parts of each one, like if there's something about amendment four that I want to discuss, but we're on one, I can't bring up four.

So that makes sense to me for ease of discussion, not necessarily ease of voting.

But I I see the ease of voting part, but just to clarify, we're still gonna have discussion.

No one everyone's gonna get the floor, reference anything you want.

I just think then just to have the conversation about all six, ask questions about all six, then members of council.

I see Mr.

Callahan, give me give me a minute here.

Um, then if people have questions of councilwoman Kramsey Smith regarding one and four, they could ask her at the same time as we consider questions of solicitor, request to Mr.

Evans, question of whomever.

I don't want to keep interjecting, but any other discussion before I give the floor to Mr.

Callahan again.

Mr.

Callahan.

No, I just wanted to add and let both you know if there's a certain part, uh if they all get voted down, but there's a certain part of one that you like and a certain part another, then we all have the right to propose another amendment, multiple amendments, you know, tonight.

So if there is something that you like in one amendment and another, and you want to combine them, then you have the right, and we all have the right to propose multiple amendments uh after these amendments are discussed and voted on.

Correct, correct.

Any other discussion?

Mr.

Miller, please call the roll on grouping amendments one through six together.

Mr.

Callahan.

I'm Gramsy Smith.

I'm squeating aye, is Laird, aye, is Leon aye, is Wilhelm and Mr.

Cologne.

All right, the motion passes seven zero.

So I'm going to read through just a brief introduction of the six, then I'll give the floor to councilwoman Kramsy Smith to give a broader insight to the to the motion, and after that, I'll invite a second for discussion on them all as a group.

So for the first amendment presented, councilwoman offers scenario one, in which she proposes adding four firefighter positions after six months, promoting four firefighters to lieutenant positions.

Amendment two for the second amendment, councilwoman offers scenario two, in which she proposes adding four firefighter positions for the last six months of 2026 and promote and promoting four firefighters to lieutenant positions also for the last six months.

Amendment three, the proposal would be adding four firefighter positions, and after six months promoting four firefighters to lieutenant positions.

Amendment four, scenario four, in which the proposal is to add four firefighter positions for the last six months of 2026 and promoting four firefighters to lieutenant positions also for the last six months.

Amendment five, which I'll call scenario five.

And the proposal is adding four firefighter positions, and after six months promoting four firefighters to lieutenant positions, and amendment six scenario six proposal is adding four firefighter positions for the last six months of 2026 and promoting four firefighters to lieutenant positions also for the last six months.

So that's the summary I had.

Councilwoman, I'll ask you, Councilwoman Cramsy Smith, I'll turn it over to you if you would like to uh more formally introduce for discussion um amendments one through six.

It as is in our packet, if you don't mind referencing account and page numbers for each amendment, and then after you introduce them, then I'll invite a second and then we'll have our our discussion on them.

Thank you.

Um amendment one, like I said, is for six months because it seems most feasible that we can get four additional firefighters to the academy in July.

And because we are missing an officer at engine nine, whereby we have one officer having to float between two stations.

Um the other the additional proposal in this amendment is once the um four firefighters complete the academy and are on staff, we promote four current firefighters to lieutenant.

So then we will have every station staff with an officer and the firefighters that um is really um necessary according to national standards.

In all of my three first, um, well, I'll talk about the first one.

I looked at the budget and councilwoman, I don't mean to up you, I'm sorry, for just introduction for the motion and then the second.

Can you just go over line by line what is what what we're adding, what we're eliminating?

Okay, and then can I give a reason my rationale to if there's a second, which I anticipate when we go to discussion, I'll give the floor right back to you to open up the this is just formally introducing the amendments to the discussion.

All right.

So amendment one, um, I am proposing um eliminating or reducing the following sums.

Code plan reviewer position, eliminate that to the sum of 80,987.

It's from the general fund and the department is DCED.

It's on page 63, um, Bureau 0305 code enforcement.

Eliminate secretarial position, um, 44,000 zero um 44.

The general fund from the department of community economic development, um, page 53 of the budget book.

And I must note that both these positions do not currently exist, they are proposed new positions in the Department of Community and Economic Development for the 2026 year.

So it's not eliminating current positions, it's just eliminating proposed positions.

Um, also eliminate five thousand dollars under the general fund for the department of community economic development.

This was a new line item.

Overtime was never um a line item in the DCED um department under the general fund.

So I would eliminate $5,000 from that, and that is on page 63 of the book.

Overtime reduction, the general fund again under the fire department, uh, 125,000.

We had um earmarked 500,000 for um overtime, but we are at almost a million this year.

If we the rationale certainly is if we file hire more firefighters, the overtime budget should be reduced, and we could use money from that budget um to towards the new firefighter positions, and then the community recovery fund, a reduction of 76,448 dollars.

There is currently 1.6 million dollars in that fund, and that is from the general fund civic expenses page 175.

Councilwoman, I don't mean to interject.

I apologize.

I think you're on amendment two, if I'm not mistaken.

I have amendment one here.

Oh, I I apologize.

Mine reads amendment two for that.

260,000, you said 70 something.

Okay.

I put okay.

Could I have all the six month amendments first?

Oh so let me let me get the um I guess continue as you were, councilman.

I don't mean to councilwoman, excuse me.

I don't mean to interrupt you.

I think maybe you're reading through what you presented.

And I'm I'm looking at what Mr.

Miller gave us.

They're all six going to be talked about and considered.

So as we discuss them, then we could confirm that we're on the same page about what you're doing.

Do you want me to repeat this because that first amendment was for a full year?

Do you want me to repeat that one?

Um just continue where you were and then move on in the sequence you were of the second.

Let me do.

I'm gonna do the three for six months and then the year.

I'll talk about it.

Um again, the community recovery fund reduction is on page 175, and then to create and add uh the general fund in the fire department for firefighters.

Um, the academy will cost 80,000, and the salaries for six months will be 121, 346, and also in the fire department, promote four firefighters to lieutenant for six months at the uh cost of 10,406 dollars.

I also included the medical, the pension, and the 27th pay, which would occur in 2026, and the total amount um needed for the addition is three thousand three hundred and thirty-one thousand four hundred and seventy-nine.

Is that for the six months?

Number two is six months.

So what we're gonna do is count because all six revenue discuss as a group.

So I'll allow councilwoman to introduce them in the order she was going to when we discuss them.

And should we choose to pull any out?

We're gonna use what Mr.

Miller gave us as the reference amendments.

I'll just go right to the just so that we know we're looking at the right one.

Can you it can you name they are numbered at the top?

Amendment one through six.

Can you just let us know which number you're looking at?

We know you're going in six months and then full year.

Well, I think councilwoman might be looking at her own what she submitted.

Right.

So is what yeah in the Mr.

Miller distributed to simplify it.

I'll go and I'm gonna do amendment one now.

That is for the full year.

Okay.

Okay.

And when I get to the one that I already did, we will not repeat it.

Okay.

So amendment one is to propose um hiring four new firefighters for the whole for the fiscal year 2026 by eliminating and reducing allocations from non-essential services and line items.

Eliminate and reduce the following the plan reviewer position in the DCED department, page 63, the budget book, from $80,987 to zero, secretarial position in the DCED department, page 53, the budget book, um minus 400 for 44, and 444.

Overtime in the DCED department, again, page 63 in the budget book, eliminate that $5,000 to zero.

Overtime in the department fire department, page 155, and that is from $500,000 to $327,000 and $798, $327,798.

Community recovery fund, department and general fund, um, civic expenses, page $175 from $1.6 million to $1.3 million by reduction of $260,184.

The total adjustment or reduction is $562,417.

With that, we would create and add the following in the fire department for firefighters to the academy at the cost of $8,000,000, for firefighters salary for the year at the cost of $242,692.

Promote four firefighters to lieutenant for six months, the cost $10,406, Medico, $104,220, pension $114,000 and $964, and the $27 pay in 2026, $10,135 for a total of $562,417.

Amendment two, again hiring four new firefighters for fiscal year 2026.

Eliminate or reduce the following plan review of position in DCED from $80,987 to zero.

Secretarial position in DCED administration, page $53, $189,260 under secretario to $145,216 for a reduction of $44,044.

Overtime in DCED, code enforcement, page $63, $5,000 to zero for reduction of $5,000.

Overtime in the fire department, um page $155, $500,000 to $375,000 for reduction of $125,000.

And the community recovery fund under the general fund, civic expenses, page $175, $1.6 million to $1.5 million for reduction of $76,448.

Total is minus $331.479.

Create the following.

Promote four firefighters to lieutenant for six months, $10,406.

Medical is $52,110, pension is $57,482, and $27 pay in 2026 is $10,135 for a total of $331,479.

And again, this is for four firefighters for the six month period.

Amendment three is the hiring of four firefighters for the fiscal year.

And this is for the full year starting in January.

Eliminate or reduce the plan reviewer position in DCED.

Code enforcement page 63, 80,987 to zero.

Secretarial position in DCED, page 53, 189,260 to 145,216 for reduction of $44,044.

Overtime in DCED, code enforcement, page 63, $5,000 to zero for a reduction of $5,000.

Overtime in the fire department, page $155, $500,000 to $250,000 for a reduction of $250,000.

And community recovery fund in the general fund, page $175, $1.6 million to $1.4 million for a reduction of $183,386.

For a total reduction of $563,417.

Create the following in the fire department, the academy for four firefighters, $80,000.

Salary for four firefighters, $242,692.

Promote for firefighters to lieutenant for six months, $10,46.

Medico, $104,220.

Pension, $114,964, $27 pay in $2026, $10,135 for a total of $562, $417,000.

Amendment 4 to hire for firefighters for fiscal year 2026 for six months.

Eliminate and reduce the plan reviewer position in DCED.

Code enforcement page 63, $80,987 to 0 for a reduction of $80,987.

Secretarial position in DCED, page $33, $189,260 to $145,216 for a reduction of $44,044.

Overtime in DCED, code enforcement, page $3, $5,000 to zero for reduction of $5,000.

Overtime in the Department of Fire, page $155, $500,000 to $298,552,000 for a reduction of $201,448.

For a total reduction of $331,469.

Create and add the following.

Salary for four firefighters for six months, $121,346.

Prom for firefighters to lieutenant for six months, $10,406.

Medico $52,110.

Pension, $57,482, $27 pay, $10,135 for a total addition of $331,479.

Amendment 5, hiring four new firefighters for fiscal year 2026.

And this would be for the full year starting in January.

Eliminate the plan reviewer position in DCED.

Code enforcement plate page 63 from $80,987 to 0 for a reduction of $80,987.

Secretarial position DCED administration page $53.

$189,260 to $145,216, a reduction of $44,044.

Overtime in DCED, code enforcement, page $33, $5,000 to zero for reduction of $5,000.

Overtime in FIRE, page $155, $500,000 to $327,798 for a reduction of $172,202.

And create and add the safer grant, which will cover $75% of salaries in Medico for plus $260,184.

Total incurred is $562,417.

Create the following in the Department of Fire.

Academy for firefighters, $80,000.

Salary for firefighters, $242,692.

Promote for firefighters to lieutenant for six months, $10,406.

Medico, $104,220.

Pension, $114,964, $27th pay, $10,135.

Total incurred, $562,417.

And amendment six, again, to fund the hiring of four new firefighters for fiscal year 2026 for six months.

Eliminate the following: the plan reviewer position, DCED, code enforcement, page 63, $80,987 to zero for reduction of $80,987.

Secretarial position in DCED in administration, page 53 from 189,260 to 145,216 for uh reduction of 44,044.

Overtime DCED, code enforcement page 63, $5,000 to zero for reduction of $5,000.

Overtime in the Department of Fire, $500,000 to $428,644 for a reduction of $1,356.

Add the Safer Grant, $5% of salaries and Medico at $130,092.

For a total incurred, $331,479.

Create and add the following in the fire department, academy for four firefighters, $80,000.

Salary for four firefighters for six months, $121,346.

Promot for firefighters to lieutenant, six months, $10,46.

Medico $2,110, pension $57,482, $27 pay, $10,135.

Total incurred $331,479.

Thank you, Councilwoman.

Have a sub.

Yeah, really.

Thank you.

So that that is the motion on the floor as we group them together for the six amendments introduced by Councilwoman Kramsey Smith.

Well, that's them being read.

Is there a motion to consider?

I'll make a motion.

Councilwoman Leone makes the motion to consider.

Is there a second on the group?

For discussion.

Yes.

Second.

Second by Councilwoman Quyotec.

So now we're on discussion of all the amendments as a group together.

Councilwoman Kramsey Smith, I'll turn, I'll give the floor back to you to elaborate on what you present.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Well, first I feel like I need to clarify because I think there's a lot of confusion, especially regarding the community recovery fund.

Um I have to say that yes, an email did go out from administration, and I'm very discouraged by the attempt to undermine me professionally and personally by false falsely accusing me of dismantling the community recovery fund.

The fund that I had a huge role in establishing it.

Um we had $35 million in COVID money, and the plan was to earmark $1.5 million of that for housing, homelessness, and the community recovery fund.

And I was the only council person at that time that demanded that we at least double that or more than double that that fund for those three entities.

I was able to double that to $3 million.

So I advocated for that fund to be created and to continue.

The only reason I have that fund in here is because with the budget, it is very difficult.

I had to look at the general fund and see where I could take money to hire four firefighters.

Very difficult, um, as you all know.

And with the community recovery fund, we now have we have $1.9 in it.

We'll now next year have $1.6.

I'm not sure why the administration deleted the $300,000, but nonetheless, we have $1.6 million in that fund.

And there's so many possibilities that if we needed to take money, the $76,000 from that fund for the six months, which is more feasible and higher in the firefighters.

There are many options whereby we would get that money back.

One is the safer grant, where if we apply for that, um, which becomes available in May, it will cover uh significant cost of the salaries and benefits for those firefighters for the first three years.

So if we get the grant, we can then transfer the money back in the community recovery fund.

Additionally, we have overtime that uh the last year it was $1.3 million, I believe, in the firefighter budget.

If we hire more firefighters, we'll have less needed in the overtime budget.

We can then transfer back to the community recovery fund.

Um just need to look at my notes.

The other issue is we have 31 firefighters that are eligible to retire right now.

In the next three years, I think it's very likely that we're gonna have at least four firefighters retire.

So again, we should be able to recruit that money and transfer that $76,000 out of $1.6 million back into that fund.

And if administration wants to say we can't do that, as a chair of the finance committee, I know for a fact I've sat here frequently throughout the fiscal year, and we transferred funds from one department to another, so it can be done.

As far as the community development and community of community economic development, as I stated in my memo to council, again, this is a difficult decision.

And I certainly are not undermining that department.

I have said I I really appreciate the hard work that they do.

However, we have had a significant increase in the staff in that department since 2017.

I said 21.5 positions, but I was corrected because some of those positions are contracted workers.

But the bottom line is we've had an increase of 21.5 positions, people working in that department.

And I know that you know their work is increasing and that they do valuable work.

However, we have a decrease in the fire department.

So what does logic tell you that you need to do?

So what I'm looking at is taking away the proposed positions, not current positions in that department.

They want it, they want two and a half new positions for this year.

I'm looking at taking the money from those positions and putting them toward hiring firefighters.

It's a very difficult decision, I know.

Um, but again, the safety of our community has to be paramount.

Now, I've been told that it's it's illegal to transfer money from department of community economic development because a percentage of their funds are based on fees and permits.

So I researched and um looked into legal opinions and um or solicitor can clarify if this is correct, but based on the 2023 and 2024 Bethel audit reports for the city of Bethlehem, the city does maintain a clear separation between the general fund and enterprise fee-based funds.

Enterprise funds are those which are self-sufficient.

The fee derived funds like water, sewer, the stormwater, and the golf course fund are enterprise funds, and their account is set in separate enterprise funds in our budget book.

Okay.

They're not commingled in the general fund.

And the department of community economic development is not an enterprise fund.

It is under the general fund.

So how can it be said that we cannot transfer monies from that department's general fund money toward the fire department for salaries?

In the audit, it states money counted under department earnings, departmental earnings within the general fund, which may include certain fees and charges, is already part of the general fund and thus could theoretically be subject to intra fund transfers per the city's budget rules.

So a solicitor Sue, would you like to can you comment on that?

Because I know that is it that was raised as a serious concern.

Yeah, there is a concern with regard, and and this is not a value judgment, it is not a criticism, it's a legal issue.

Um all of these proposed amendments seek to eliminate two positions within DCED that are proposed to be funded by an increase in building fees.

Um under the law, a municipality can't use its power to charge fees for the purpose of raising revenue for general government purposes.

So the building fees can only be applied to the provision of the service of reviewing plans, doing the administrative things that need to be done to process applications and deal with that end of business.

So that's the reason that I came to the legal conclusion that eliminating these two positions that are funded by specifically by building fees isn't a viable option.

It's unfortunate, but it is in accordance with the law.

The floor is still yours, Council.

Okay, thank you.

So I guess what I'm trying to clarify is I'm taking this right from our audit report.

And it for what I'm reading in the audit report is that it is okay to do so that we can transfer the funds.

Um the Department of Community Economic Development, again, is not fully funded based on fees, it's not an enterprise fund.

A percentage in back in the general fund, the highest percentage of the general fund goes to police.

The second highest goes to DCED, and then the third goes to fire.

So if a significant percentage goes comes from the general fund, why can we not transfer that money from the general fund within DCED to the fire department within the general fund?

You're absolutely right.

The DCED is funded, it's it's part of the general fund.

However, these particular positions are proposed to be funded by fee increases and fee fees must be applied to the services rendered in performing the functions upon which the fees are based.

So again, this is building fees.

So the processing of those applications, that whole administrative process is what those fees have to be applied to.

If you have any other questions about the report that you read from, I would pose those to the administration.

If I may just interact, councilwoman, to I hope to provide a point of clarification.

So on page two of our budget book is the grants and gifts.

So something like, you know, account 30405 is CARES Act, that's Health Bureau money.

The CARES Act can't go to pay for um Mr.

Evans' health insurance.

The so we have while the while there are enterprise funds, and what we're talking about and enterprise funds, and I'll let Mr.

Evans correct me if I'm wrong.

So enterprise enterprises in the city of Bethlehem are self-sustaining that enterprises, the golf fund.

You go play golf, you pay a fee, they use those fees to pay the people that cut the grass.

You turn on your water tap, water comes out, you pay for the water.

That money, as we reviewed during budget season, as we always do, goes to pay the water department and put in new piping.

Same with sewer.

These are enterprise funds.

The general fund is a is a larger fund that is tens of millions of dollars.

And there are different revenue sources in the revenue fund, but those are not, I would say those aren't all unrestricted dollars.

Some of those dollars are tied to general fund expenses.

And I don't have the the um excuse me, the memo in front of us for one we voted, uh, I think two and then three council meetings ago about raising DCED permitting fees and then tying those to these positions.

And forgive me as I don't have those available right now, but I believe there was a breakdown of raising these fees and then tying them to these new positions.

If they're fully funded, I won't speak to that with confidence in fairness, councilwoman, but there is a state statute, and this has been referenced over the years here at council that says exactly what attorney Stewart's saying that if we need to balance our budget, I can't say, and similarly, I don't know if you pay for like a fire inspection fee, but we can't raise a fire inspection fee to pay for new positions in DCED.

It works both ways.

Any raise in fees or permits have to be tied to the service, the people getting paid to provide that service in simplest terms.

I hope that provided clarity.

Yeah, and I'm aware of that.

I know we we actually raised fees in the health department.

Um, I think it was like two meetings ago, also, in addition to DCED um for um inspections, but the health department isn't putting in, you know, they're getting increased fees and they're not getting increased staff.

And part of the reasoning, major part of the reasoning besides the fee increase was that it's been uh some time since the fees were raised within both departments.

And in looking at the ordinance that we passed to raise the fees, there is nothing in that ordinance whatsoever uh that ties it into the positions because it really couldn't, the ordinance is only about the fee increase.

And I understand about the positions being based on fees, however, um there are many positions within that department, and you know, some of the positions are paid by the general fund.

Many of them could be paid under the fees, like even like the the um director, because they're directly responsible for overseeing the people that that do the inspection.

So what I'm saying is that since it's not an enterprise fund and self-sufficient, and it does rely on money from the general fund, um, is there not a way?

And I think there should be, I I could be wrong though, that we can take money from the general fund portion of that that we're saving on not do not hiring two and a half new positions, and that might mean just within that department, you know, the way the line items are as far as the salaries go, making sure that those that are involved in um that which they're providing the service for and the and getting the fee that they're being paid by the fees, and then you know the others are are being paid under the general fund.

I just want to clarify is that a question you're posing, councilwoman?

Yes.

I'll turn to the administration for an answer to that, Mr.

Evans to clarify the question.

I'll I'll allow councilwoman to repeat the question.

Okay.

So since the um department of DCED is also um funded by the general fund.

Is there not a way?

Because like I said, we transfer funds throughout the year all the time with with um within and with uh intra and interdepartments.

Is there not a way to uh sure?

I mean, do we the the positions that we were proposing were proposed for DCED?

Is that anywhere in the budget like a line item exactly where the money's gonna come from those positions?

Revenue or expense?

The well, where was where how were we going to pay for those expenses?

Okay, let's um page one budget book of the categories.

We'll see real estate taxes, Act 511 taxes.

When you get down to city licenses and permits, second line 3022 one permits are moving from 1.2 in 2025, based on the votes of council to increase fees to 1.4 million.

That was those fees were increased to pay for the the positions that you're speaking to.

So it would be the administration's position if the reducing the positions that those fees would need to be reduced, you know.

You you and that's what the memo explained that we provided those fees are directly to provide services, a plan reviewer, secretarial support to help the code bureau, the positions that appear in your budget come out of the code.

The code bureau's position, there's five employees.

Total expense for that bureau is 661,000 dollars.

In addition, uh, we use a maximus report to understand what's the total cost of bureau.

That's only the their salaries and maybe longevity included, nothing else.

If you want to pick up the cost or the expense of the fringe benefits, anything along with them, we use that maximus report, the internal cost study that we do each year.

And on um when we looked at it this year, the maximum report for the code bureau is $603,000.

Adding them up, it's $1.2 million for uh of expense before adding anyone else into the code bureau.

So by adding new new employees, you need to do that to increase fees.

The decision was made to increase the fees and the employees to keep it balanced because this again, this is uh a service, it's a fee, it's not a tax.

So if you have a recycling fee, it needs to go towards recycling, you can't increase recycling fee and add police with that or fire or anyone else, it would be it's the support if it's a fee, fee-based, user-based, has to be attached to the recycling stream, or in this case, the permitting process.

So revenues equal the expenses.

So either they go in together or they have to come out together.

Yeah, I understand that.

So could can you tell me?

So everybody that um is employed in that department and involved in um the services provided, you know, by the fees.

Are they are there all of their salaries covered by the fees, or are part of the salaries covered under the general fund?

Code bureau, that's what they do.

So it's all all of code itself, but there are there's additional support in other areas, like uh that's what the maximus report would pick up.

That's 600,000.

I spoke of that picks up the additional support from administration that's not that's an administrative bureau, not the code bureau.

It would pick up support services of human resources or the medical or the fringe benefits.

So that's the way that calculation works.

So are you are you saying, just so I'm clear, that the fees cover all the salaries of those involved in in code or involved in providing the service for which the fee is for do you understand what I'm saying?

So for the salaries of the people in that department that are providing the service, I know we we can only we can only pay um we can only use the fees for whatever that within the department where the um services are being provided.

Okay, so are are the fees paying for all of the salaries of the people in that department that are providing the service for which the fees are are for in that bureau for that bureau.

That's a code bureau.

They're the ones that produce process follow-up.

So in under code, and all of their salaries under code, and then under DCED.

Um there's other bureaus that do other things.

Okay, yeah.

So is that the positions were going to be aware?

That's what the memo, the three-page memo that was sent.

Yep.

And what about the increase under health and what are those fees gonna go for?

Because they're not getting any additional staff, yeah.

I can ask you to come to the microphone, please.

And the same for anyone who's gonna answer a question.

So if you just don't mind going to the microphone, we weren't recouping all the money to pay for our personnel because I think it had been like 14 years since we had raised the fees, so obviously salaries have increased during that time.

So this is bringing us, and we still aren't recouping 100%, but it's bringing us closer to that.

Okay, thank you.

So I guess Mr.

Evans, my question is, and I know this is really complicated, but um under the department of DCED, um, we do have salaries that are paid for by the general fund, correct?

The whole department is in the general fund.

It's again, it's complicated because there are a number of grants that cover some are partial positions, some are fully covered within that department.

You're talking about a department that has is it 10 bureaus, eight bureaus, seven bureaus within it.

So it's not just straight one from one, one for one.

But if we're talking about these positions, these two are gonna process code, it's uh to us, it was very clear cut.

We agree with what we heard from the um legal opinion that they're tied together, those fees were designed and increased and based and justified to the citizens, we're increasing fees because we're providing you additional service, right?

We and now you're saying keep the fees, but don't bring the people that it doesn't add up.

The numbers we have don't support in any way.

So what we would say is if you're reducing the positions, you just need to it's a budget neutral because you're gonna need to reduce that revenue or reduce the fees, put the fees back where they were, call it a day, or keep them both.

Okay, so given that we had um in the budget proposed funds for the new positions, um, and we we have an increase in fees.

Is it possible that we assure within that department that everyone who is involved in providing the service for which the fee is for that they are paid for with the fees, and there's others that are paid with the general fund, and then can we can we transfer that part part of the general fund, you know, the salary part of the general fund for people that are not being paid with the the fee?

I don't I really don't understand the question.

I mean, right now the five people there 100% involved, the fees that they collect and they process is directly tied.

So I don't know it's unless it's a shell game or something, it's the it's not so what I'm saying is if we if we if we um amend the budget and we don't hire the additional people in DCED, okay.

Um we're gonna have additional money in that budget because we're gonna have increased fees and we have money you're marked for those additional positions, correct?

What we would propose if you're not hiring the people to then amend the fees and reduce the fees so it's even because now uh you've increased fees and not provide service.

Yeah, but we've done that.

We're doing we're doing that in health.

We're increasing the fees, but we're not adding more staff, even though I'm sure they could use it.

I'm I so that I don't understand.

I I rust the administration rests on this one.

Thank you.

Understood.

I get can I just ask my question again?

Or is I I said I'll let attorney steward take another skip, give her opinion.

So yes, the health bureau has raised fees, they're not adding positions, but they are raising fees because they haven't for years, and they're trying to recoup some of their losses.

So that is a completely separate situation than what's happening under in in the code department where fees are being raised and positions are being added.

You cannot raise fees, code fees, and then not spend them on code.

And I I think what you're saying, if I'm if I'm understanding correctly, is can't you somehow take money from the general fund because you're getting this additional money for code and put that toward the firefighters?

But I'm not quite clear on what line item you would then propose to take it from because you can't take it from code, right?

It would have to be from the general fund, and that was my question.

That's why I was trying to ask if there was something we could do as far as transferring money within that department, but apparently I'm not getting an answer.

So the floor is still yours, councilwoman.

If you did you have anything else while we're on discussion?

Um I could still for you have anything, council?

Okay.

No, I mean, I'm good.

We'll just are we gonna go through discuss as we go through the amendments then.

Okay.

I just wanted to clarify.

Well, we're we're having the uh this is time for discussion on the amendments as a group, but I will go back as I do for everybody.

So again, we're on discussion for the group of six amendments.

So now is the time for comments, questions.

Mr.

Callahan.

No, I I just want to have uh I wanted to have a question on on the topic before we move on to another topic.

I think isn't it fair to say that Miss Collins and her uh her the people in her department underneath her authority that are uh they they work at times on on code stuff.

There, I mean that that's her department.

She spends time in her normal day, right?

Uh dealing with code issues all the time.

So all of her salary comes from the general fund, correct?

Miss Gowns.

All the general fund, yes.

Correct.

I think what she's trying to say is that since she works in on the code enforcement a lot and has to deal with that, a portion of this new money for the new the new fees can be used.

I don't want to cut her salary.

I'm not trying to do that, but we could take uh I forgot what her what's her salary.

She got 135,000 our salary.

We could take a hundred thousand dollars, or maybe I don't know how much you know she you know she spends with permits and codes and zoning, but we could take half of her salary uh and take half half of it provide the funds for her salary, half of it out of the general fund, and then there's no reason why, no legal reason why we couldn't use these new fees, just like the health department is to get caught up.

We we could use these new fees to supplant her part of her salary because she does work in on code and it's under her department.

And I'd say uh uh uh a substantial amount of her time is on code issues.

I would say you said there's no legal reason, so I will let attorney steward respond to that as none of us council members are lawyers, and that's why we have one up here.

But as attorney steward takes a sip, I'll just recognize as we move through discussion, these are remarkably complex budgetary discussions as it relates to, and I invite everybody if you've never looked at the budget book, please do.

Um, as Mr.

Evans referenced page one that talks about the revenues that all go into the general fund and where they come from.

Page two, as I talked about grants and gifts.

So when we're talking about positions in the budget book, we're recognizing how much they cost the city, but it's not always clear, and that's why we have these discussions of where that money always necessarily comes from.

So that's why it's just important to understand the complexities with it's not just necessarily taking a dollar from here and putting it there when there are restrictions or state statutes tied to where some of this money comes in from, how that money needs to be spent.

I just wanted to make that point.

But attorney Stewart, um, to Mr.

Callahan's point, if you'd like to clarify.

I think what's being asked is can the increase in fees be allocated to say cover a portion of a salary and and Ms.

Collins' salary was used as an example.

Um an existing salary of someone who works on on code, um and the portion that is funded by the fees be taken from the general fund budget to fund firefighters.

So that's I think more of a budgetary question than a legal question.

If if the fees, the new fees are used to uh, I mean, there's a obviously ahead of director of this uh of of the codes department, so the money has to be using codes.

We could there's no reason why we can't have the director's uh uh pay and salary covered up.

I'm not saying 100% of it, because obviously does a lot of other things besides uh code enforcement, but she spends a significant amount of her time in code enforcement.

There's no reason why as a city we couldn't use that uh money, especially with you know the not only her, but the other people that are directly underneath her, and and just for this uh just alone just for the salary increases.

I mean, it's it's at some point we just can't keep on uh feeding that department more and more money, and and it and if the codes is part of her uh department and and under her watch, then there's no reason why we couldn't legally use those fees to to supplant some of her salary, which is being funded by the the general fund.

I mean, it's it's it's not that hard of a transfer.

It would just basically be um we we don't get the two positions, we increase the fees, and then Miss Collins and Mr.

Evans and and and the mayor, I wish he was here tonight.

I don't know where he is, but um, if he was here, I think uh he would agree, and I think Mr.

Evans would agree.

We have uh uh finance committee meetings all the time during a year, it's very easy to move money from one fund to another.

So Miss Collins's salary is 135,000.

Her her her um assistants are 100 and 113,000 each.

We could, I'm sure they all work on code also.

There's no reason why we couldn't take, I'm not saying all of it, because I don't think we could legally say that she spends all her time on code, but there's uh a jud a rational justification that yes, she spends time on code and and and so do her her her her two um uh assistant directors.

I just want to pose the question to the administration and allow them a chance to respond.

Right.

I think I understand what you're saying, Mr.

Callahan.

So Mr.

Evans, Ms.

Lassarchek, whoever wants to answer.

Well, we're talking.

I just want to clarify for counsel in the room, Mr.

Evans.

I think the question on the floor is we we voted on permit fee increases to fund two positions that were tied to that.

Now, what we're talking about is if we eliminate the two positions, can we keep the permit and fee increases and use that revenue to replace money that's being used elsewhere, and then presumably, I guess, whatever money is used to pay for other positions, free that money up to be unrestricted.

I think that's fair to say.

Yeah, and then and there's a clear disconnect here.

There's a horizontal argument and a vertical vertical argument.

What you're talking about getting the fees and then moving moving around moving around this way.

The point is from the legal point of view is that if you're collecting fees for a service, the total number of expenses for the city should be close.

Doesn't matter where they're coming from or who you're sliding it to and taking it from.

When you look at the fees, they were 1.4 million in the book, right?

Well, there are one two before we increased.

The code bureau, what does it cost to perm to process permits?

We need to come up with what that numbers to begin with.

What is it?

All right, it what's the number?

Well, the code bureau itself is $600,000.

That's out of the budget book on that page.

Then how do you find out how do we get to 1.2?

The maximum study is a study we do each year.

They are professional cost accountants that figure out what's the total cost for the code bureau to exist.

There are five employees, the director, and right, and the sports and some inspectors.

That's your real 600,000.

However, they get assistance from human resources, they do get assistance from the administration, they get secretarial support, they get it um uh from financial services uh when the permits are processed.

All those all those calculations that are very high level are calculated in the maximum report.

That's why we pay for it, it's done.

That report, which is 261 pages long, when you open it to append it on page C2, schedule A, you'll see here's the code bureau.

What does a code bureau cost besides the 611 direct, those are direct to salaries?

How much else?

That number is 661,000.

So you know, 1.2 is what it is, and now we're collecting a 1.4 in fees.

So, yes, yeah, but we can't reduce.

So if it's one foreign fees, and we know it's one two, which includes the support of different people in CD and everything else.

If we're adding two people, right?

It was one, two, and one, two.

We just added fees to one four because we're gonna add expenses with these two positions.

So it's very clear, and we're it shouldn't be this foggy or clear, this should not take this long to come to the conclusion and hope it's not we're not stuck on this particular item too much longer because it's you can't do it.

If you keep the fees, you keep the people, or you or you disconnect or find another something else to move on to.

But this is in no way close to something that that makes sense.

Understood.

I can't be clear, I can't be more clear.

And just to just to clarify, yeah, that 1.4 justify it takes in or the increase takes in administrative support from the department, financial support, yes, all those other supports.

That's what that study does.

So Laura's salaries already part of the equation.

There's a lot to that.

And is it fair to say, just for the the sake of clarifications, and then I'll give the floor back over that the Health Bureau reduce bureau raised fees, but there's still a shortfall in the money that comes in for the health bureau.

But if we eliminate these positions, now we've created a surplus with the revenue, and we cannot essentially overcharge the public.

So that's a legal market.

That's what that you cannot use fees for general fund purposes.

And that's essentially what you would be doing.

And thank you for shedding a little light on that for me, in terms of the fact that the maximum study takes into account all of the sources that go to fund code, and that makes perfect sense.

But it's still not covering operating costs, or the maximum study, or excuse me, it's all comprehensive, but the for codes, the raise in fees and permits essentially was to cover close that gap.

So it's not necessarily a one-to-one between codes and the health.

We looked at that extensively as part of the proposal we brought back to you months ago.

Understood how we got there.

I hope that provided some clarification.

You had the floor.

No, I just that was just a one question.

I didn't want to move on to another.

No, we're we're it's when you have the floor, you have the floor.

We're have the we have the group.

Like I said, I like to get to voting.

Uh ask your questions now, get them answered, speak your speaker opinion, and then we'll move on to voting.

I I want to thank everybody for coming here.

Uh especially all the people from the um social services and and in and the community outreach programs.

I everybody um is here to try to do the right thing.

Um, I think uh I I had walked in on your on your discussion, so I I apologize for being late, but um, I think what we really ought to understand is this probably the most important thing I think we can all agree on.

We we want to take care of people, but the most important thing is our health and safety.

Um, and without uh a police department and a fire department that is um appropriately funded, we're gonna be in trouble.

Um this department has been working, not uh, I I think in in one of the memos from last the last uh council meeting is that there was 26.

Hold on one second here just between 918, September 18th, and November 18th, there was 28 instances where mandated overtime was put on the fire department.

That doesn't mean overtime, that means there's hundreds and hundreds of hours of overtime being asked of the of the department.

That's 28 times that they're burnt out, and they don't want to do any more overtime.

28 times they someone was told it doesn't matter, you have to work.

That's just from September to November.

So we can do all the studies.

I talked about to CR Day about you know, I the study is look at the amount of overtime and the mandatory overtime that these gentlemen are being forced to work, they don't have a choice.

Normally, people do want to work overtime, but they're so burnt out on overtime.

There was 28 times in a three-month period where they were forced to you don't want to do it, tough.

You got to work overtime.

That's what we're that's what we that's the situation we're in, and it's our job to either help alleviate that problem now, so it doesn't get worse in the in the coming year, and morale is going to go down and down and down if it's not already down.

So we try to alleviate this problem now before it gets worse, because next year, if we don't do something now, next year at this time, we're gonna be right back at the same position, probably worse.

So how do we do this?

We got to come up with.

Um for six months, you know, last six six months a year.

So my goal tonight to everybody here on council is let's try to find a way.

I don't know if we can I think it's a harder pull to get four new firefighters for the whole year.

That's like 500 and someone thousand, or it's almost five hundred thousand hours.

I think six uh six months because we we're not gonna get them to this June anyways.

If they go right, Chief.

They I mean they they they wouldn't if we funded it right now, it's highly unlikely that we're gonna be able to get those four ready to go for January, correct?

Yes, that is correct.

I spoke with our human resources director, uh Shahaki either I'm sorry, today's Thursday, so it was possibly Tuesday, maybe Wednesday.

I'm sorry, they all blend together.

Yeah, um, but uh she has confirmed that based on the timeline of December 16th when the budget would be settled, that we would be unable to add additional firefighters to the January fire academy class.

So by the time they got done with the academy, they wouldn't be even ready to go until like June or July.

That's correct, it would be late June.

So my my plea to everybody here on council is that we try to find uh I don't know what the number was.

It's I think it was you know, for four firefighter positions for six months, it's three hundred and thirty-one thousand dollars.

We have got to find three hundred and thirty-one thousand dollars in this budget somehow because we if we don't they're gonna be asked over and over and over again for mandatory overtime.

Ask yourselves this.

What if you're what if your employer was wasn't asking you nicely if you want to do overtime, they're telling you you have mandated overtime, whether you like it or not.

Is that how we treat them?

So that's my my plea tonight is let's as a council come up to an agreement.

I hope seven zero to try to find three hundred and thirty-one thousand dollars, and then next year's budget season, we won't have to go through all this again.

We're gonna have to hopefully the mayor at that time or or or you know, and and and the people that are on council, and I already talked to a couple of people that are coming on council, they're they're for this.

So I'm pleading you, please.

Let's try to find 331,000 dollars.

I don't know how, but there's a lot of different amendments here, and I'm gonna propose some.

I have never in in 10 years on council, I voted one time for a tax increase.

I don't want to raise taxes ever.

But if we can't find the money that's already in the budget book, which I know we can, it's a huge budget to find 331,000.

It's I mean, we do that all the time.

Mr.

Evans last year we budgeted 500,000 for overtime, right?

Yes, and what's it running right now?

Almost a million, right?

920.

Yeah, it's cost of that.

Yeah, and the year before that, we budgeted 500,000, right?

Correct.

And what was it last year?

1.2 million.

Correct.

All right, 1.23 million.

I think I think the numbers.

Where did we magically come up with the extra 700,000?

I've explained this a couple times.

It's a it's inverse relationship with salaries and overtime, right?

We budget that the positions are filled, and when we start the year, if people leave, like right now, next year, we're sending eight to the academy right away.

So when we start the year, these eight that were down, they're all gonna be on salary.

They're gonna go to the academy, but they're gonna be collecting a paycheck.

So salaries rolling, that account is rolling.

If people leave during the year, salaries drop.

If positions are open, that's what drives overtime.

So it does this, right?

So this year, salary's down 500.

Overtime's up 500, it's balanced.

We're not gonna balance them both, put them about a million dollars because we know overtime won't be up.

I got this down.

Okay, so doesn't it make sense then instead of forcing people to work over since the same amount of money at the end of the year?

Doesn't it make sense to add the four firefighters and it's a wash at the end of the year?

It wouldn't be a wash, of course it would, because it's only gonna be 300 331,000.

Last year, this year alone, we're gonna have to add the last time we spoke about this.

I think you said it was at 900,000, right?

Right.

So we're gonna have to we have to find some way.

Did you already find the 400,000?

The you budgeted 500,000, it's gonna be 900.

Where's that 400,000 coming from?

Salaries, people left right this year when they left and did that.

Now you're adding those positions, the same salaries, plus another 400 on top of that.

It's not gonna lower the case.

So if you add if you add I'm not yeah, listen, no, gymnastics of this no, I'm just trying to ask you a legit question.

I answered it.

Now you're telling me you're repeating the same thing I explained to you.

Let me ask you different she's here.

It's a spot on.

It's three tenths of one percent off.

Salaries and overtime are equal.

Right.

They're equal.

They're gonna work out as we budget it.

The budget works.

I'm telling you, if you do that, next year's budget doesn't work.

So if you create a false narrative on that, go ahead and you create a deficiency.

And next year, someone the council can get stuck with a deficiency you create tonight through some shell game, it's not gonna work.

It's not a shell game.

Someone's gonna get stuck if you do that.

So if you just do it and add it, it's not gonna work.

So do it.

The the the question that I have, and I'm trying to have a rational discussion.

I really am this year for the 2026 year, you budgeted 500,000 again.

Okay.

Somewhere we're finding this money, and what I'm saying is what you were saying is there is a uh uh a coexistence between hiring more firemen and payroll goes up a little bit, but then fire uh fire overtime would come down, correct?

Opposite, yeah.

It's the opposite, it would come down.

Overtime's not gonna go up if we add more firemen.

It comes down a little bit, right?

I'm just saying it doesn't make more sense to alleviate the pressure off these guys.

It's it's it's at the end of the year, how we move the money around is is up to us, but at the end of the year, it's still going to be the same amount of money.

It doesn't, it doesn't make any sense to to spend all this extra money 1.2 million dollars on overtime.

You only budgeted 500.

You got to spend it, and you got to find an extra 700,000 hours.

Let's spend let's find it instead of 700,000.

Let's Mr.

Evans, you're gonna you gotta find an extra six, seven hundred thousand hours.

Not find anything.

The salaries were not spent because when people if they retire and open the position, which creates the overtime, those and those salaries that were not collected because they left, pays the overtime when it's backfilled, it's equal.

I have to find any money move.

It's it's the same.

So I think Mr.

Evans has made his point a few times.

I I don't agree with it, but uh and you have the right not to have the right not to agree.

I I'll move on.

Thank you.

Um why do you uh why do we have I'm not I don't know the person in this position, but when you start adding community coordinators, Mr.

Callahan.

I I want to stick to the amendments that I propose.

Is the community coordinator part of any of councilwoman Cramsley's amendments?

Well, or please tie it back to the amendments, please.

I'll I'll bring it up later again for the sake of every because we're kind of muddying the waters.

No, I know.

If we you know Miss President, I'll bring that up when we when we're allowed to present our understood.

Let's let's stick on uh on the five thousand overtime for a community and economic development.

Miss Counts, there was no money in that before for overtime.

Why now?

I'll let Ms.

Collins answer, but I believe this was brought up in answer during our eight-hour meeting.

That's that's correct.

Um, because we used overtime this year.

We do need overtime.

Our permit process is such, and we are busy enough that we do need our permit folks to work occasionally on the weekends to catch up.

So this year we did pay out in overtime around four thousand uh five thousand dollars, a little less.

So we added that line into the budget for five thousand dollars to cover situations that may arise in the future.

Aren't they all salary though?

Salary positions, they are salaried positions, right?

Yeah, there's there's a mix of of TAMs and and union employees in the department.

Yeah, but the people that have salary, shouldn't they?

I mean, they have a job to do, right?

So why are they being being paid overtime?

Because they're forced to come in on the weekends.

Like they're forced to come in.

Thank you.

Are you done, Mr.

Callahan?

No, no, I'm I'm not even starting.

Well, again, but um what did we say?

Yeah, I I go continue to ask everyone be respectful of each other.

I am Mr.

Calhoun.

I am.

I I don't like being snowed on thing in my opinion.

Okay, but I'm I'm just trying to I'm trying to find out why why are they?

I I thought they were exempt from overtime because of what I thought exempt salaries are not they can't get overtime.

I don't know.

The secretaries in the department are union, non-exempt.

They get overtime, they're hourly employees, the secretaries in the department.

Yeah, and they're the only ones getting overtime.

None none of the other salaried employees are getting overtime.

This past year we did make an exception for the plan reviewer who had to come in on the weekend.

And how much and how much of that did he get?

It was, I mean, it was less than five thousand dollars, it was a few thousand.

I don't know exactly the breakdown per employee.

Um I'm just hoping tonight that we can try to find the funds to um hire four more firefighters by the end of the year.

We we we can do it.

If we can't, um, I would then suggest that we either go into our rainy day fund, which is how much is that, Mr.

Evans?

26 million.

We don't have we don't have well, use a word.

I've never used the word rainy day.

Mr.

Evans, I like to interject just as for council purposes.

No one has ever until recently started saying rainy day fund in here.

It is a cat from from a budgeting and accounting purpose, and Miss Lassarchik could uh cash balance correct me if I'm wrong.

This is a basic budgeting principle.

How much money do we have in a cash balance fund?

Well, at year end, it's enough to cover the bulk money, doesn't really come into the city until March 31st.

So what we end from January 1st to March 31st, we have seven payrolls that are about $2 million apiece, debt service payments, uh medical weekly city insurance packages.

So it's our year-end cash balance, it's not a rainy day fund, it's our first quarter cash fund to get through it until the real estate taxes come in on the discount period, which is uh on or about March 31st.

Bring it back to the amendments, please, Mr.

Callahan.

All right.

I'll I'll bring that up later too.

Then um Mr.

Callahan, I'll ask you to keep asking questions, or I'm gonna move on to another member of council.

Okay.

Um I'll wait until uh these amendments are voted on because I I have several other uh amendments that I'd like to propose from other departments.

Understood.

We're on discussion for the group of amendments.

Any other comments from members of council?

Can we go off of me go this way?

Yeah, councilwoman que you very much.

Um first, I would like to thank everybody who works for the city um for all the hard work they do.

Um, I know that some parts of our workforce maybe get a little more um you know uh a little more attention and and praise because what they do can be very dangerous.

Um however, the work that's done in bureaus and departments like public works and DCED and other places is just as valuable.

Um, it changes lives, it uh keeps taxes flowing into this city by developing our uh infrastructure by developing our economy.

Um, there are innumerable ways uh that all of these departments and bureaus work together, which is why I was extremely heartened to receive numerous memos from um people across the city and this administration, people who've been here for decades has nothing to do with you know where their paycheck is coming from in terms of who the mayor is at this particular time, people who've been here from law much longer than this particular administration took the time to write to us to emphasize that they are all interdependent, all of the departments are interdependent, they all work together, they're all working towards goals like eliminating you know homelessness, uh helping with building affordable housing, uh, our recreation, our parks, all of it, right?

All of the things that actually do also keep us safe.

And I want to re-emphasize that code enforcement is public safety.

Um, I I heard someone say tonight that um that the new buildings at Pembroke were going to be more dangerous because they're they're gonna be built cheap.

That's not true.

We know fire structure fires are are you know down.

We new new infrastructure is safer.

Yes, people things do catch fire, even new buildings do, but in terms of sprinklers, in terms of code, in terms of all of the things that go into that, um, our infrastructure and our built environment is safer uh than it's than it's been.

Um Chief Griffin, can I ask you a couple of questions?

Oh, he just stepped out.

Okay, I will move to my questions from for Mr.

Evans.

I know he just missed my, you know.

Um, so Mr.

Evans, um, so uh you you answered the question quite well about the relationship between overtime and salary, and I understand exactly where the money comes from.

Um, because on the finance committee, what we do when we when the overtime is depleted is we vote to move money from the fire salary into the uh fire overtime.

And and so we've watched this happen for the last four years.

Um, if you're paying attention, if you're reading the budget, if you're talking to the people who are experts on this, like Mr.

Evans, like Ms.

Lazarchik, you understand how all of this works.

One of the other things that I understand is that the general fund does not equal paid for by taxes.

There are like a dozen varieties of revenues that come into the general fund.

So when we say, well, that's in the general fund, that doesn't mean that that's like paid for by property taxes, right?

So 96% of the DCED budget is not paid for by taxes, but it's all in the general fund because what we do is we we put everything in the general fund, but there are very specific, you know, line items both for revenue and expenses.

So we know what what is connected.

We know what where the money is coming in and how that connects.

And so one of the things we do is to pay for things like public safety, we use tax dollars in and that also goes into the general fund.

And the reason we do that is because everybody, it's for the common good, for the general good.

It is something that at any moment anyone could need.

And so we all gather our resources as taxpayers and we pay for these things.

And so what makes the most sense, as we did two years ago, when one needs uh when one needs to increase the number of paramedics, for instance, uh, or potentially firefighters, is to increase our revenue on our in our taxes because that is a reliable source of income.

It is a sustainable source of income, and it goes as it goes up, it covers things like three percent increases in your salary every year or pension payments and things like that.

So I completely understand the difference between the general fund and what's paid for by taxes.

Okay.

And that's I think where maybe the understanding broke down a little bit on that.

Um so you also asked my I was going to ask what's a rainy day fund.

So I appreciate you clearing up the fact that the cash balance has uh is not a rainy day fund, but rather uh just a lapse in in timing in the way things work in terms of how money flows.

We all know the difference between cash flow and right in our and our calendar and and and uh when when our bills are due versus when our salary comes in, not always a perfect match.

Um so uh chief, thank you.

You're back.

Can I ask you a couple of questions?

Um we have plans and we have the people to bring 15 more people onto the force this year to fill vacancies, correct?

They're gonna fill vacancies, the people who are going to through the through the through the academy this year, this in in 2026.

So the the administration has budgeted for up to 15 recruits to attend the academy, should we have that number of vacancies throughout the year?

So currently we're going to be sending seven plus one that's returning.

So that's eight out of that 15, which leaves seven additional slots for the remainder of the year.

We're not just gonna hire 15 right now because we don't have 15 vacancies.

Okay, so we have eight vacancies.

That is correct.

Okay.

So when we do get those folks in mid-year, you know, and I'm sorry, actually, we we have nine vacancies.

Nine vacancies.

Eight of which we can fill and cannot be filled right now.

Right.

Um, so you've already anticipated the fact that we could get to our full compliment mid-year, and at the same time, we probably are gonna have some vacancies develop during that first six months of the year.

And that's why we have the funding to that is correct.

We're going to send those eight and realistically, depending on everyone's personal situation when they choose to retire or not, depending on where they are personally and with the with the uh incoming raise for the new year.

Some folks may decide to retire.

Um we we built that in and anticipate that some folks will retire.

We have money to send them to the next open academy then.

Okay, good.

That's very helpful to know.

Thank you.

Um, and that and and what you're saying, of course, is that we have money to send them to the academy.

That's like the extra money is the $20,000 per person because the salary would be there if someone left.

Obviously, then the salary is there for whoever we would replace them with.

That is correct.

Right.

Someone was that more of a Mr.

Evans question, I'm sorry.

That would be more of Mr.

Evans.

All right.

So I just wanted to have all of that clear.

So we're really only right now nine positions away from being at our full complement of of firefighters as as our force is constituted right now.

As we need to hire to fill vacancies.

That's great news.

And we're glad to have them back.

But uh we still have five individuals who are out on long-term injury or illness that are unable to report.

And I have no anticipated date on when they may be able to return to work.

Okay.

And so um, but they get paid.

That is correct.

I mean, obviously, right?

If we're out on on the leave, we you know, we get paid, obviously.

Um, okay.

So that's that's clears up a lot for me.

I really appreciate that.

And um, but nine people is still a lot, right?

So can we talk about the shifts for a minute?

How many total shifts across the whole uh force are there each week?

Well, we work on on a four four-day rotation cycle.

So we have four for suppression.

Okay, over over eight days.

Over eight days, all four would work.

Right.

No, but I mean how many shifts is that total, like you have X number in each platoon, and like how does how much does that add up to?

Can I just for clarification?

Is every day a nine-hour shift and a 15-hour shift?

Every day is a nine-hour day and a 15-hour.

So there's two two platoons go to work each day.

Right.

I'm saying how many actual people is that.

Oh, currently each platoon is staffed with only 22 out of the 24.

Uh, because we're we're short those individuals.

And then each shift is missing a couple individuals.

Um, they're not all on one shift that are out with long-term injury or illness.

Okay.

Um, and so if we look at the three months and the 28 uh over times that were mandated out of that's like hundreds and hundreds of person shifts.

If I if I'm do you know what I'm saying, like each person, each slot on it.

I'm not talking about like, well, there are you know, this many firehouses, so there's that times two.

I mean how many actual people.

Yes, those those instances were referring to where the you're asking about the mandation.

Yeah, those were 28 people that were mandated 28 times.

That right, one time each.

One well, I mean, it could have been somebody repeated.

Somebody could have been repeated because of the way things flow.

That is a possibility, yes.

Um, but out of like I said, hundreds of shifts.

I mean, you know, like I go to work five days a week.

Um, so that's for me five shifts, but there are another 1,200 people there.

So, you know, if we all go to work, if all 1200 of us go to work, that's six, you know, the six thousand shifts, man out, you know, man shifts or people shifts.

That's what I meant.

Okay.

Just in terms of the percentage of like overall, it sounds like a lot over a three-month period.

And if we look at it in the broader context of how many shifts actually get covered, how many you see what I'm saying?

Yes.

I understand what I'm saying, at least.

At least I understand what I'm saying.

Now keep in mind we work with 18.

So a lot of times we we do have to go below that 18.

So people voluntarily take the overtime in order to get us close to that number.

Right.

And then if nobody fills the rest of those vacancies, then we have to mandate individuals.

Right.

And that happened 28 times over three months.

That according to that recording last time.

Yes.

It was roughly at the time.

I just wanted to understand that in the context of the broader actual number of shifts.

Um I know we talked a lot about the the increase in calls, you know, um, how many calls are answered and and all of that.

Um, but can you please explain again um sort of the the uh the top types of calls that we get, um and you know how you know classify them for me, just sort of like off the top of your head, the the kind of yes.

The the the majority of the the top top type of calls that our personnel respond to are emergency medical assist calls with our EMS bureau, motor vehicle accidents, automatic fire alarms, um, and and calls of of that general nature.

Those are our our top producers of of incidents for us.

Okay.

So I mean, I'm not necessarily in that order.

Right.

Thank you.

I'm I'm asking for this information, and I know I hear grumbling.

I'm sorry.

This is our job, and I know that a lot of people think that we're just looking at numbers, but I'm also looking at people.

I understand that the people are behind the numbers.

So I I just want to clarify these things because I'm trying to better understand the complexity of what the staffing really means.

And for me, that's part of my decision making process on these um on these amendments is whether the time is right to um add these kind of right now, as opposed to getting that fuller understanding of of what the work is and you know, the in terms of what the mix of the work is and who's doing it and what's the best way to approach that.

So I appreciate your input on all of these things.

Um and and I also appreciate everybody's patience with me because again, I think it's important we get all the information we can.

Um I know I wasn't in the room for the eight hours, but I promise you I was up on that screen for all eight hours of it.

So I, you know, I understand uh that there was a lot already said, but I wanted to make some of that clear.

Um and also, Mr.

Evans, thank you for explaining the concept of the Maximus study.

I think there are probably a lot of people who don't understand that.

Um coming from the nonprofit world, what we call that in grant writing is indirect costs.

We call them indirect, but they're real, right?

I mean, the the work is real.

And if, you know, if Ms.

Lazarchek is doing something uh with financial uh services for uh the code folks, that means she's not doing something for financial services for another part of the institution.

So accounting for all of that work and it's real dollars, it's real work and it's real people behind it.

So I appreciate that explanation.

And I think it's really helpful for all of our understanding here on council that um, you know, that those pieces of people uh go into that overall budget.

And so it's not a it's not a shell game by any means, but rather um, you know, that money is all already accounted for when you look at that 1.4 million dollars potential for permits um and the straight salaries to code and then the indirect costs.

So I really appreciate that information.

Um I just want to say that uh, you know, I also appreciate our solicitor who I think has been um incredibly competent and helpful uh for us over the last several years as she as she arrived.

And um, you know, when you are handed a legal opinion by your solicitor, I think you should take it seriously and uh and respect it.

You can certainly have questions about it, but uh, you know, I think that that is uh that is significant.

Um Chief, we also talked you you also shared with us via a memo about the safer grants, and I and I'm sorry to make you sit down.

No, I apologize.

Um so the the safer grants, and and again, I did 12 years of grant writing and fundraising in nonprofits of all different sizes.

So I am you know familiar with the concept that you cannot count your chickens before they're hatched when it comes to fundraising.

Um also there are some complexities to this safer grant.

If we actually hired people and put them into an academy six months before we even applied for that grant, we could not use that grant to to pay for the people, right?

Because they're supposed to be new positions, and it's not a new position if they tell you in August you've got you've got the money to create a new position.

Am I misunderstanding that?

No, you're not.

Based on based on my discussion with our uh grant administrator uh in our department and the research I've done, this grant is specifically for hiring of new fire personnel, basically keeping firefighters who are going to be laid off, returning firefighters from a layoff or going from part-time to full-time fire department, growing the size of your department from everything I have read um that you cannot hire prematurely and then apply for the grant, assuming that the grant would cover the cost of these individuals.

And that is why I I submitted what I submitted.

We also have to be at full compliment, right?

Because we can't add positions if we haven't filled all of the positions that we have.

You are correct.

That is my understanding that we we have to be fully staffed in order to grow the department that we can't use that to increase our staffing to the level it should theoretically be.

That is that is my interpretation from researching this.

Yes.

Thank you.

And then finally, on the um community recovery fund, um, Mr.

Evans or Ms.

Collins or whoever wants to answer this.

Can you explain why to why the amount of funding in the community recovery fund is lower this year than it was last year?

Yeah, the money was spent.

Yeah, it was 1.9.

That that's a declining amount as a money in the account is spent down.

So the money spent in 2025 reduced the number that goes into 2026.

That's what's left.

Right.

And that's on purpose, correct.

This is one-time funds.

And while um the administration hopes to, you know, eventually find some kind of mechanism, perhaps in the in the future uh to continue this this funding source that's not guaranteed.

Uh, we know we have what we have, and these are one-time funds.

Correct.

One time.

Thank you.

And and again, this is so funny because I work for um, I work for the person who's in charge of you know, the finances of a large organization.

And we were talking about this today because I talked to her about this stuff.

And uh, and I said, you know, I don't think we can use these funds because they're one-time funds.

And if we're gonna hire four firefighters, uh, and then we're gonna pay their pensions and we're gonna give them, you know, increases and all the things that they deserve and that they earn with the hard work that they do and the dangerous work that they do.

We can't turn around in a couple of years and say, or next year and say, oh, sorry, yeah, that money doesn't exist anymore because we knew at the beginning that it didn't, it wasn't going to exist forever.

Correct.

That's a that's a bond.

That's a that's a that's a pledge we make to our employees um that we you know are not going to be like, oh, well, next year, you know, so you might have a job.

Um, now when you're on a grant funded position, you do know that's the case.

There's some times when a grant ends that a job ends, but you know that going in.

And I think again, going just to take it all back to the beginning.

Um, the reason that we use taxes to pay for things like police and fire.

Um, and that is, of course, the biggest chunk of our of our budget is is public safety is police and fire.

Um, we use the taxes because it is a sustainable source of revenue, it grows over time, um, and we have the mechanism to increase those taxes when we have a worthwhile reason, such as potentially increasing um, you know, uh the costs of our, you know, the the salaries, the number of people we have um performing public safety and other things like that.

So I appreciate you answering all my questions.

Thank you.

I'll just go down the row.

Councilwoman Laird.

I don't confuse them.

That's more.

Okay.

So uh my general comments are that you know, I do want to acknowledge the intense pressure that this council uh has been under from multiple sides in this conversation.

I understand why our firefighters feel urgency um about staffing, and I do support increasing firefighter staffing uh through the use of sustainable new funding, taxes, fees, safer grant, etc.

Um, I understand why residents are worried.

I understand why the administration wants additional data uh to inform strategic decisions.

I understand why nonprofit partners and at-risk communities are terrified of losing the support that they do rely on.

Um those concerns are real and none of them should be dismissed.

Um, and it's been disappointing that uh this is the way that the debate has evolved into one department's people services priorities being pitted against another's and into a public narrative that suggests that council doesn't care about safety or community services of any sort uh unless we adopt or don't adopt a specific amendment.

Um I think the conversation so far has shown that like this is a very complex uh and somewhat restrictive process that we're in.

Um so that framing really isn't accurate or productive.

Um it's our responsibility to adopt a legally balanced budget, reliable data within the constraints the law imposes on us.

So that being said, I have a couple of questions to figure out what we can actually do if we're trying to look for things.

So um we've already asked a bit about the uh the safer grant funding.

Um so uh we asked about the practicality side of it from from Chief legally, can we include that in our amendment?

In a balanced budget, you have to base that budget on funds that are in hand or going to be acquired.

A safer grant, the grant period last year was from May 30, May 23rd to July 3rd.

So that would be putting something speculative in your budget.

You can't do that in a balanced budget.

So no.

Okay.

So legally, we can't take the it's your opinion legally that we cannot take the fees uh for the construction permits and put them towards this.

We can't take these safer grant funds that we don't have and plan on them.

Right.

Okay.

Um can we at this point in time pursue uh tax increase?

Your tax oh, and that's that's not part of the, I just really that's not part of the current amendment.

So I I'm gonna not ask that question right now.

Um this is about what got us here and what um what contingencies we could potentially put in passing these.

Um, so it's my understanding that part of the relationship breakdown that got us to this point uh versus sticking to the plan that was previously underway between the union and the administration towards staffing and operational strategy, um is that there's an RFP out right now uh that does not include everything that the union preferred be included uh in the study.

So are is council within its uh limits allowed to request for revision of an RFP that is currently out by the administration.

No, it's not, and and that goes specifically um to your ordinances, um and I I want to find some specific language for you.

Um your question again, so there's it Mr.

Evans, is it correct that there's an RFP out uh presently under the city's administration to uh seek a study on staffing and operations for fire and EMS?

Uh it went out in July, it ended in uh on October 31st.

It's no longer out, it's just so it's closed, but even if if if it were out, Article 121.05A of your codified ordinances would preclude that because that's the city, um, the administration with the preparation of specifications, letting of bids, contracts, and such.

So okay, so that's not something that we're allowed to it is not um okay.

Just one moment.

I've got a lot of notes I'm trying to filter through to make sure I'm asking about specific things relating to the proposals on the table.

Um, we were talking about moving things from general fund, um, and that we do that um through the finance committee, um, and that we move things sometimes from other funds through the finance committee.

So um is there a difference between what we're allowed to move during the budget season versus like during um like outside of budget season when we have done that through the finance committee in the past, right now you're going through the budget passage process, which is statutory, and you have to, as I said, pass a balanced budget.

The budget amendments that happen during the year are adjustments for things that do or do not happen.

So if we were to uh I'm sorry, okay.

Okay, uh if we were to get a safer grant, could we then adjust the budget to account for it?

Yes, you could.

Okay, and if we were to um find any additional streams of revenue outside of the budget cycle, whether that's fees, taxes, etc., we could adjust the budget to allow for it.

Okay, um, in terms of other amendments to the budget, like is there a time frame that that's allowed outside of past December 31st?

You have to pass a balanced budget by December 31st.

There is a mechanism by which the um budget can be amended by council for a brief period of time in the new year, and that's under the third class city code, but there is a deadline for enactment of any budget amendment, um budget ordinance, and that's February 15th.

So that's that's taking to account you know, amendments being proposed, being advertised, being you know, first reading, second reading, vote, and meeting that deadline.

So it's a tight tight window, but yes, it is provided for.

Okay.

So I think we've covered that we cannot spend money from restricted funds, whether that's because of designated revenue sources or because of enterprise funds, correct?

Like the golf course, right?

Um, we can't I believe uh we said we can't really hire before July realistically, additional beyond the people that were already planning to send.

Is that that's correct?

Uh according to my conversation with the director of human resources, that is what I was informed.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

Um so really we don't have a practical or viable, legally viable route without taking from existing services within this budget.

Correct.

Um but there are options outside of the budget season that might not require taking from existing services.

Correct.

Okay.

I think that that's all of my questions for.

Oh this in it's tell me if this question is permitted.

Just ask your question.

Uh so the situations that happened last Sunday where there were um you know multiple calls happening at the same time.

We had to pull out an active engine from from somewhere.

That obviously, like nobody wants to hear that.

Um I'm wondering I think that I like I don't know the details of how this works.

Do we have a mutual aid agreement where other departments come in when we're slammed with a bunch of things?

So we do not have an automatic aid agreement with any any other agency, okay, which would mean or they're called automatically.

So uh we're bound by part of the collective bargaining agreement that states that our personnel must be called out before I call resources from another municipality that are not specialty pieces of equipment, like for example, that we can't get from somewhere else, such as like a truck to refill our SCBA cylinders.

That call out can happen simultaneously with a request being made by the officer in charge for a unit from, for example, the city of Allentown or the City of Easton to provide us mutual aid assistance, uh, which is in accordance with our collective bargaining agreement.

But I could not just request, or that person on Sunday could not just request an engine from Allentown without us doing a call out of our personnel to come into work to backfill uh our stations and our reserve equipment.

Do we have to mandate overtime before we're allowed to call in for extra assistance?

No, that's separate.

That's in an emergency situation.

That would be what we consider a an emergency call out.

And for that, every firefighter is on the table.

They they're called, they answer they have to come to work for the emergency at hand.

Okay.

That has nothing to do with with an overtime, and overtime is more of a scheduled shift change issue.

Okay.

Um, and what is the rationale for not having automatic um call in from other departments?

Well, one, it's it's in the collective bargaining agreement that we must adhere to.

And two, we we run into an issue from time to time.

Um, it's not automatic.

We have provided aid to other municipalities and we have received aid from other municipalities.

The problem that we run into as the city of Bethlehem and a career fire department is sometimes municipalities who don't have their own resources that border our community will want to rely on us for some smaller incident calls that they may not be available for or have personnel to respond to, for example.

It's very easy for them to call the city of Bethlehem because the city of Bethlehem is staffed.

However, we can't be on automatic dispatch to every municipality that wants or needs our help for these small incidents.

We reserve that, and our posture has always been for a long, long time that we will provide mutual aid to any department when available, when we're properly staffed and we can provide proper coverage for the city of Bethlehem.

If we have resources available, we will send them to assist that municipality.

And as soon as that municipality has the incident under control, we will pack up leave and come back to the city.

When we leave the city to assist another municipality, we're obligated by our our collective bargaining agreement that I have to backfill those positions.

So if I send four firefighters on a piece of equipment to another neighboring municipality and they become committed to that municipality, then I have to call four firefighters in from home to fill their vacancy until they return.

So we will help them when it's absolutely necessary and they have a severe event, but we can't be running out of the city every day to help somebody with a small event.

That's why we don't do automatic aid.

So it's the other end of the mutual side that makes it correct.

It's mostly and we have received assistance from other departments, which we're very grateful for.

Um, and and we have provided assistance, but it just can't be on an automatic basis for for minor incidents that unfortunately we just can't be their resource to assist them.

Understood.

Um thank you very much.

I I that puts that in any other discussion from council my right, councilwoman Leo.

Hi, Chief.

How are you doing?

Good, how are you?

Well, live in the dream every day.

Um I want to talk about your your numbers a little bit.

Um, these are the numbers that I got from you, uh, our last budget meeting.

We're but we're budgeted for 106, 10 exists at City Hall, 96 in four platoons.

Uh Platoon one has two vacancies, three away on health, platoon two, two vacancies, two on health, platoon three, two vacancies, one health related, platoon platoon four, two vacancies, which is about 83.

If we add the one person that is has just come back.

That is correct.

I believe one came back, and I believe we lost one.

So I think we're back to eight.

I think we're right back to where we were two weeks ago.

Yes.

Right.

Love that for us.

Um, so that's we should have 96 in four platoons.

We have 82 in four four platoons.

82 people.

Um, and I think that we keep asking the question is 104 enough.

Um, in this case, it would be 96 in the four platoons, which I think it's obvious that 82 is completely not enough.

Like that seems to be.

Okay.

So with when we have the eights that go to academy at the beginning of the year, how close are we going to get to that magic number of you being at full compliment?

So theoretically.

Theoretically.

If on January 15th, when they report that nobody has retired between the first and the 15th, that day they won't be on the line, but they'll be employed.

We will have that number employed if no one retires.

I it's gonna take, as we said, six months to get them through the academy.

But on payroll, if no one retires between the first and the 15th when they report numerically, we will be fully staffed.

So halfway through the year we'll be in a much better situation than we are currently right now.

Depending on retirement, you're correct.

And I'm asking that because I believe that I agree with certain points that the the year-long amendments do not make sense.

I think the six month amendments would make more sense if if any of the amendments were to go through, it would be the six month ones that make the most sense to me because we will understand our positioning a little bit more six months into this.

So I'm looking at the six amendments.

I've taken three off of my uh thought process because they're the six month amendment or the one year amendments.

I took the other six-month amendment off that cuts community recovery fund because I have had the privilege of speaking not just with you, but with a lot of members of the union, um, a lot of firefighters, a lot of their our community, and most people have said they do not want to see that fund cut.

So I have removed that.

I have two amendments, amendment four and amendment six.

Um one of them is the safer grant.

I feel like we've talked about this a lot, but I will ask you again.

Um, let's suspend all reality.

Say we apply for the safer grant.

All of those rules don't apply, we apply for the safer grant anyway.

What is that safer grant cycle like?

When would we know if we got the money?

Like, would we know in July?

Would we know in August, September?

So um last year, the application period for the safer grant was May 23rd to July 3rd.

The announcements for the award can be made anytime between August the 18th and September 30th.

So we would know in August or September.

If the way they did it last year holds true, that is correct.

Yes, I'm I'm taking extreme liberties here with with the safer grant.

Understood.

Um does that mid-year academy start.

Uh as of right now, I am not sure because the city of Allentown may or may not run a second academy, and we would have to talk with our partners at uh Harrisburg Area Community College.

That would be sometime July, so it would end before the holiday season because it follows the college semester, but I do not have an exact start date.

July.

Yes.

And we wouldn't know about safer until August or September.

If they follow the same format as used in previous years, yes.

Um which leaves me to one amendment, amendment four.

Um, but we've discussed uh the plan review position and the secretarial position and how you cannot use fees from one to another.

I was looking at that course case that you sent us, solicitor steward, and uh it seemed to me that it dealt more with the restricted funds, but it does go into like if you use fees, it's considered an illegal tack or tax or like a misappropriation of funds.

Correct.

In that particular case, and that cases case law is very, very fact-specific, but the I sent it to you for the broad premise that that fees cannot be uh used for purposes other than which they are collected.

All right.

Um so I mean I I agree with council woman lair about a lot of things.

I feel like this has been um I mean if council's in a pressure cooking cooker, you're in Dante's Inferno.

And I just I really I feel for you.

I feel for the position that you're in.

Um these are difficult decisions that we we have to make.

I'm definitely willing to continue to listen to what conversations we are going to have.

Um, I don't just because we're talking about these amendments um on face value, I don't see how these are balanced or appropriate for all the reasons that we just discussed.

I'm very anxious to hear anything else that might be um discussed as willing as I am willing to talk about the ideas that I had that fell very short.

Um but what I what I won't do is is pit community member against community member.

I'm not interested in it at all.

Many members of first response were were in the military.

I I was in the military.

It's it's one ship, one fight here.

We're literally one team here, and I I'm not going to pit a first response person against a community member, just like I wouldn't pit a soldier against supply.

You can't have one without the other.

It's very important that we maintain respect for each other because we all want to see what's best for our community.

So I'm I'm willing to continue to engage.

Councilwoman Wilhelm.

I'm really only have a couple of questions remaining.

Um is for you, Chief.

And so we have three cadets who recently graduated.

Yes, that's correct.

Do you anticipate or or what impact do you anticipate that will have on the mandatory?

Because we're you've been referring to that three-month period where there were 28 incidents of mandatory overtime.

What sort of impact do you think that those three new cadets will have on that?

Once they're up and running, I think it will have an impact on they do have some training uh on the job training and field training to go through, for example, before they can be mandated because they're right now they're not apparatus operators on the street.

So they there's only certain jobs that they could be mandated for.

Um, but one additional thing we we did implement on the first of the year was um working in conjunction with local 735.

We we added another step in our mandatory overtime process um as a combined effort.

And what's going to happen this time is overtimes are going to go out, everyone's gonna bid on their overtimes.

And before anybody is mandated, we're we're made the decision to allow that overtime to go out for a very short window again, letting people letting all the firefighters know that hey, somebody's going to be mandated.

This is your last chance to take this overtime.

Um, and actually today was the first time it was put into place, and we did have somebody take the overtime, so that individual did not have to be mandated.

Okay.

And that was that was something that we worked on together to try to try to alleviate part of this problem for the guys because we understand nobody wants to be mandated.

Sure.

So in the previous system, other firefighters were not aware when somebody's overtime was being mandated, and you've sort of made a that it's more of a transparent sort of a call out to say, hey, we're about to do this, and then giving someone the option to make sure I understand you correctly to then step in voluntarily for the overtime.

That's correct.

What was happening is um when it went out and nobody bid on the overtime, you they're kind of watching the text that come out through the system and they're seeing that nobody bit on it.

And if if there's a firefighter, for example, who's like, I can't be mandated, I I have something going on with my family.

They might text some guys and be like, well, somebody please take this tonight.

And uh, you know, we identified from from some feedback that that that was a real problem or issue, and we were able to put this step in there.

And now everybody gets a text that says, hey, somebody's about to be mandated.

So if you were on the fence about taking this overtime, you have five minutes to make that decision or 10 minutes to make that decision.

Got it.

Okay, thank you for just trying to do what we can to help.

Absolutely.

Um, and thank you for that.

My my other question is for uh you, Mr.

Evans, and so moving forward as planned with the city study.

What do you envision?

And I know we haven't selected the firm who will conduct the study, so this there's some sort of um speculation here, but what do you anticipate that the timeline would be for potentially recommended staffing increases um as you envision it right now?

So are we imagining a two-year wait?

Is it something we could potentially envision bringing in the 2027 budget?

Where do you envision those those additions potentially being uh implemented?

Well, depends what the study comes back with your sure.

Assuming it's recommended, yes.

What would happen with the study then um yeah, it would be in time for next year's budget season, would be the plan.

We are looking to have the study completed in five months.

What was the ask?

Uh there's people that want to talk to us about that.

So what that's some of our pressing questions when it comes to that they can stay, they have the capability and capacity to stay on schedule and deliver us some conclusions and recommendations.

Because again, I can't do it this time of year.

As we you can see the complications, and you know, we the mayor was very clear about that that he wanted to stay on that timeline.

So that would that is our goal.

It's uh ambitious study because it's fire and EMS.

Right.

There's a lot to it.

Um, it's very comprehensive.

But uh if it's done in that May, June, even with a little buffer there, it still gets to time, you know, July is still have enough time leading up to budget season to come to conclusions from administration, share it with council and deliberate and whatever uh would come of it, could be then worked into the 2027 budget.

Okay, so giving council potentially months to have these discussions rather than weeks, which has been the case.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, all this kind of started the after the budget address action.

I mean, we've had five weeks.

Yeah, five weeks, right?

Right.

Yeah, and the budget came out the next day.

I'm talking timeline, I'm talking about the day after the fire, the public safety committee meeting was called.

So I'm I'm obviously I'm not gonna be on council next year, but I just want I just for the sake of this work.

I want to understand that you know the plan that is in place to move forward with the the comprehensive study you have in mind for fire EMS, looking at those many layers of things that you do imagine the possibility.

Should it be recommended to add staffing from the results of that study that that the council at that time will have months to understand the situation, help assist in conversations around you know, sustainably um, you know, sustainable funding for for positions, not just for a year, not as a stop gap, but as permanent funding that those firefighters can count on for years to come.

And what we would have months, they would have months to discuss this.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

I just I really want to understand that sort of like very on the ground.

Yeah, it's a much different approach.

It's um again, that was what was in the RFP.

That's what would be in the contract, and it will be a battle to keep like any study or any contract or any um building project to keep it on on schedule, will be part of uh you know, one of the larger prior larger priorities of the uh entire project itself.

Okay, and also just to clarify um, because I I know that not everybody who is is paying attention tonight or at any given step is necessarily sort of aware of all of the information.

The study, the city study is happening.

This is not whether it's not on the table to be we're we are conducting a study of our fire and EMS.

The plan at this time, uh we haven't signed any contract yet.

Uh the RFP was out, RP is received.

The goal would be to bring it to council, needs to be approved, needs to be approved by council study.

So uh we would come to you at the end of the at the last council meeting of the year to for the funding and uh set the funding up.

And the idea is once the selection is made, probably in in um it will be after the deadline to bring that by the next meeting, right?

But um, early in January in order to keep us on schedule to make the selection and then and enter into contract because we have to get under contract as well.

So there are a couple steps.

So it relies on on selecting the most qualified firm to conduct the study.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, President Clone, will we have the opportunity for further discussion when we come to the vote?

I'm gonna open it back up to another round of discussion.

So then I'll I'll go around as I customarily do.

I'll reserve my more extensive comments for that.

Okay, uh, I'll make comment before I open it back up to another round of of discussion.

Um, you know, I'll I'll just lead with the headline.

I will not be supporting any of these six amendments.

I want to be very transparent from from the beginning about that, and I'll share my thought process with everyone to respect to things that we that we heard already as it relates to you know, budgetary deficiencies in some of these amendments with including safer grant, which there's no just because we put it in the budget.

I will explicitly recognize the administration is under no obligation to apply for anything.

That is why we cannot prospectively put something in the budget, because that there's no guarantee that it would be there.

This would have to be applied for that's a process just like any other process as it relates to the cutting of the positions where council voted on raising the permits.

We heard about the complexities of that, and I do recognize the those complexities.

That is not to take away from anyone's efforts because I I am cannot be more forthcoming with that.

That is not my intention with any of my comments.

And again, I implore everyone, if you never have to go through it.

And when you look at identifying the different revenue streams, um, secured grants and how everything's tied back to each other.

It's not necessarily just a move five dollars from here, put five dollars there.

So again, I it's just more of a recognition of the complexity of the budget, which is why Mr.

Evans, when when do you as an administration, you and Miss Lisarchek, start preparing the budget?

Labor uh pre-Labor Day.

Pre-Labor Day, understood.

And then we, you know, we receive it uh when we receive it around Halloween.

Yeah, uh pre-Halloween, you know, in in late October.

The just the speaking more broadly, um, and and I've never been a firefighter, and I so I'm not gonna pretend to understand everything a firefighter does, but I was a dispatcher for the county for a number of years.

I dispatched with a number of firefighters who currently work for Bethlehem.

I've been to multiple weddings for firefighters who are currently on the job.

They've helped me move, I've helped them move.

I grew up with them.

We all you know, this is one community.

So when you say things like you hope you're seen, I hope you feel seen because there are people in the department today who I consider friends.

I hope they consider me friends, and and we remain in contact when you know we we have different things going on in our friend group.

The issue as it relates to what we're talking about, because the conversation has turned into adding four firefighter positions or do we need four firefighter positions?

That this is about budget amendments, and there is no, and and I'll invite our solicitor to feel free to interrupt me if I misspeak at any point.

There is no legal necessity nor action that I believe council could take to compel the administration to expend any of these funds.

And our our controllers here too, if Ms.

Riasso ever wants to chime in.

I invite you as well, sir.

But you know, what we're doing is talking about moving money around to essentially authorize certain expenditures, but just because those expenditures are authorized does not mean that they they have to happen.

And I don't want to move money around and say, you know, and really give a false sense of what we're doing, because there is no we did this, now this is gonna happen.

I haven't heard an explicit, yeah, give us that money and we're gonna do this.

That would have already been in this budget if that was the plan.

What I've heard for months now was that there was a process underway to put a plan together, a process that my understanding the union was involved in some capacity.

I you know, I won't speak to that capacity, I'm not involved in that, but that then there was a process underway to put a plan together and then come to council next year to present that plan.

I implore the administration to should it be the will of council, whether as it relates to how the budget shakes out, and then council would still have to vote on any contracts to continue down that path to present a plan because any budget amendments are not necessarily executed.

We're talking about adding lieutenants.

I've heard stationing people out by my house like Hatasaka Road, things like that.

That that's not what we're voting on.

We're voting on the the dollar amount, but the the spent it's like it's like giving you know my brother 20 bucks.

He could do whatever he wants with, you know, whatever he wants, but he doesn't have to necessarily spend it on one I give it to him for.

So I don't want to have a uh I want everyone just to be on the same page with that.

And again, attorney steward, correct me if I'm wrong, but just because something's in the budget.

Now, of course, it's an explicit kind of ask of the administration of council to say, hey, we're budgeting this, we want to see this happen, but effectively, that's all it is.

It's an authorization to spend that money.

I haven't heard I've heard from the fire department, and I recognize you know, your your wishes and your asks and how you would want to see what you want to see happen and how this these budget amendments bring that to reality.

But this in my and my perspective is a is a labor relations issue as it relates to the request of the the union and then the administration and how they want to expand that in the study that was shared at the public safety committee meeting.

It rem it recommends things like minimum staffing for a shift, and I believe minimum staffing or staffing per apparatus, the these are subject to collective bargaining.

Mr.

Evans, correct me if I'm wrong.

The contract is up at the end of 2026 for the fire department.

Correct.

Correct.

So you when would you historically start negotiations and sit down at the table?

Sometime after the new year, it varies, yeah.

So sometime after the new year, union leadership, whoever represents the administration during those negotiations, would have a an obligation in good faith to to come to the table to negotiate uh a new collective bargaining agreement, just like you have one now.

Chief, is overtime covered in the current collective bargaining agreement.

Or Mr.

Evans, uh I would have to assume such that there's at least some provision about overtime in there.

Or let me scheduling is the schedule in the collective bargaining agreement.

Yes.

Uh the schedule isn't a collective bargaining overtime is addressed in a collective bargaining agreement, as is uh part of it falls under administrative orders.

Understood.

Understood.

Thank you, Chief.

But I I guess as as I bring it back to being a labor relations issue, at the end of the day, well, what you know, a perspective that I have, I'll just share my own is we're we're talking about how many people are on duty at any given time to respond to emergencies when they come in.

Again, I referenced the study that was presented at public safety that has a recommended staffing per shift.

It's my understanding that that is a subject of negotiations that can be bargained, and that's council has no role in the collective bargaining process.

I'm just recognizing from my perspective.

This is what I do for work.

I work in government, in HR and administration, and trying to figure out I haven't dispatched for 15 years, but now I'm responsible for staffing our 24-7 operations where I work, and I recognize things like mandations.

Again, I've I've been out of the chair dispatching for a long time, but I remember what it's like to get mandated, and and I have sympathy for the folks who I try to avoid mandations for today and what I do.

So I recognize those things.

But I think the if we're trying to achieve a goal, that that goal is to be in good faith, hash, you know, try to be met from perspective of how many people are on duty at a time or how the manpower per apparatus that rolls out through the collective bargaining process, looking at things like the current schedule and and what options there are to how we deploy resources, things like that.

So that's my perspective on that.

Again, I referenced that process that was already underway, which I interpret as you know, coming up with a plan to present to council to hopefully incorporate that into next budget season to see how now I know that delays things.

We heard no one there's not really a potential to send additional firefighters to the academy for January.

We'd be looking at best case scenario the summertime.

I know this process sort of delays that with the plan for you know, review a study and and see what we do.

But again, that that's where the that's where the decisions are made in in a city like Bethlehem, where the form of government is uh the mayor and their administration are the chief executive, council has no authority over the hiring.

We have the authority over, like I said, appropriating funds, then those funds are exhausted as or spent as the administration sees fit.

And uh, yeah, I just think those things are worth mentioning that while I I don't want to be one to you know arbitrate.

Do we need more people in the you know, more people on duty at any given time or things like that?

At the end of the day, I just don't feel that taking money from one place to put it to another to try to meet these goal, it it's not it's not gonna meet even if we are able to come to an agreement of council, it's it's money in a budget, and uh, unless there's council doesn't have the authority to send people to the academy, promote, decide where they station, everything like that.

There are powers vested in the union and administration, as is their role and duty to in good faith try to come to an agreement on how these things are managed, and I uh truly believe that that uh despite good faith efforts up here too.

Uh I'm not saying anything was done in in bad faith or anything like that, because I think there's a genuine desire to from members of council to grant the wishes that we've heard for the last couple weeks, and I also recognize we're under a tight window here.

Like I said, the budget is a complex document, it's not as easy as just lower this number, raise that number.

So it's for those broader reasons that I would say I'm not gonna support these amendments, and then I would be hesitant to support anything else without an actual um action plan that's gonna bring any of these requests to fruition, other than us doing the gymnastics of moving money around to say we did it, and then we're still, you know, it still comes down to the union versus administration about how do we go about um using these funds.

So and I'll probably not have any further comment.

I we still are on discussion, we're not voting yet.

If there's anyone else who wants to add to the discussion, uh councilwoman Cramsey Smith.

Thank you.

Um I just want to reiterate um in the 1970s, there were 26, I think to 28 firefighters per shift in 2012, it was 22.

Today it's 18 to 24, and sometimes less than 18.

Because each shift is missing some people to long-term injuries in 2011.

In 2011, um, the minimum stat manning of 22 workers was eliminated, and two firefighter positions were eliminated as well as a fire station.

In 2015, two firefighter positions were eliminated.

In 2016, a May Day fire almost killed three of our firefighters.

Nothing changed.

In 2019, the city used rainy day or cash barrels, whatever you want to call it, funds for trucks, repairs, paving, but not staffing.

2021, four firefighters were eliminated.

In the recent um firefighter study, it states that Bethlehem should have 30 firefighters per shift.

The city again has 18 to 22 and sometimes less.

The bottom line is that even if we are at full complement, our full complement is not adequate for the fire department study as this past Sunday totally proved to us once again.

The National Fire Protection Association states we should have between 120 and 141 firefighters, given our population, not the 94 that we have.

Obviously, the firefighters have been waiting many years to have their staffing inadequate inadequacies be addressed.

And I think it would be pitiful as well as especially dangerous if we have to have them continue to wait.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again, especially in spite of the false information that was sent out to the nonprofits.

And I apologize to all you that received the information.

I think it was really again um discouraging that you had to have fear instilled in you needlessly.

Myself, as a counselor and an administrator of social services as um, as well as a caseworker and administrator of social services as well as a counselor for well over 40 years.

I know firsthand the importance of funding for community services and resources, and I have consequently been a very fierce advocate, especially during my time on council.

I've advocated and provided vital services to those who are homeless, substance dependent, mentally ill, developmentally disabled, LB, LGBTQIA, etc.

etc.

Concurrently, I remember myself as an eight-year-old girl when I had to go to the hospital and see my dad, who was a first responder, and I had to see him in the ICU under an oxygen tent, and I was told he's probably gonna die because of the injuries he suffered responding to a work emergency.

So I know firsthand the stress incurred by these first responders and their family.

And that is why I have really advocating for hiring four new positions.

And again, as far as the community funding, I'm sorry for the stress that it may have incurred to the nonprofits.

My intention was just to take that money temporarily until we could get the money, otherwise, some overtime and the safer grant.

Council, I think that people need to realize this, and even on council, and especially the administration, that we have the right to propose and pass budget amendments.

It's our duty.

Our country was born upon the balance of powers, and we live we in the city of Bethlehem need to adhere to that balance of powers.

Mayor Reynolds has continually stayed continually stated that we are in it, we live in a safe city.

And he even started one of his most recent budget addresses that said we define our work as a clean, healthy, and safe city.

Yeah, how can this be continually?

How can we then continue to overlook the inadequate staffing within our fire department?

Again, look at last Sunday, three incidents and not enough firefighters to respond.

Thank God there were no tragedies.

Some may look at the cost of firefighters as not a real priority.

But for me and those who have needed their services, it's vital to the safety and our existence in this community.

In the past six years on council, I have seen us do whatever it takes to do certain projects, hire more staff, etc.

etc.

But for the life of me, I cannot wrap my head around why there's a not appear, there does not appear to be the same level of effort to adequately fire the to adequately staff the fire department.

I would ask the mayor if he was here, but since he isn't, I'm gonna ask Mr.

Evans in his absence.

Why is the administration so reluctant to hire additional firefighters?

I mean, is it just it appears to me that there is a huge reluctance?

And quite frankly, I think this whole process has been so discouraging because I've got nothing but been undermined by administration, emails sent out to people trying to undermine me as a person and a professional, and I really resent that.

And I truly believe that for some reason you don't want you just don't want us to do budget amendments, but we have the right to do it.

But why, why on earth are we so hesitant to hire more firefighters when the proof is in the pudding that we need more?

Can you can you answer that?

Fully respect the amendment process.

When I was on council, I made number of amendments myself.

Uh, we just don't support these amendments because regardless of the merit or motivation, as it says in my memo, these don't hold water.

What you propose don't work for reasons stated.

So that's that's my statement there.

In your in your mind, they don't work.

I think it was each one we've got to do.

And then and many other people may think they don't work.

I think those two don't work.

The fire overtime is what you want to reduce for fire overtime.

It's not what you proposed it to.

We hire more people, so we do this fire.

I don't want to repeat what was supposed to and Mr.

Evans.

I understand.

I just asked me a question.

Her her I don't think her question is.

And I and I would like to response to the question.

The why is there a reluctance in administration to hire more firefighters?

That's my question.

That's my only question to you.

There's not a reluctance.

There is a study that was an ongoing full year discussion and agreement in a room with multiple people that we are looking at it.

Our number one priority is to get it back to staff to we've sent and we again we prioritize under 300,000 to send 15 more to make sure there's enough money to fill up the academy to get the full rank at the same time, conduct the study, and that was agreed to along the time.

Let's see where is it needed?

Is it needed at Northwest Asia on Katasaka Road or somewhere else?

Where where are the uh site locations?

Where are our the deficiencies now?

We would like an objective study for that and EMS, and that's what agreed to all along until somewhere right around budget adjust, then everything changed.

So there was not reluctance, there was an agreement to take a look at it.

But the mayor wants more of a study than just 20 people in a room saying, Yeah, here or there or there.

I've worked with five fire chiefs.

They've all felt different, and there's some things they're all in agreement with, but from Barkenick to Novotnik to Reich to Griffin, they're all an Aki, all of them had different ideas in some ways, and we would like to have some of that clarified.

And that's what we talked about.

That was agreed about.

So that's it was all good until five weeks ago, and now it's here we are.

So that's that's my answer.

Okay, thank you.

I think that again, all that all that we need to know is look at what happened on Sunday.

Um, in the interest of time and to try to simplify this, I'm gonna make a motion to rescend amendment one, three, and five because those were for full year um positions for the firefighters.

And since it's not feasible um for them to go in January, I make a motion to rescind those amendments, amendment one, three, and five.

There's a motion on the floor to rescind one, three, and five.

Second from Mr.

Callahan.

Any discussion on the motion?

Can we just clarify because there was confusion at the beginning of the meeting about which numbers like can we confirm for sure that those are the correct numbers?

I believe councilwoman clarified that those would all be the the one-year scenarios, correct, councilwoman?

It is correct.

So then the only amendments uh um to still vote on would be amendment two, four, and six, which are for six months positions.

And and councilwoman Kramsey Smith is referencing our face sheets that Mr.

Miller provided for tonight's agenda.

So the the motion is to the motions came from councilwoman, and she wants to rescind her motions for the essentially the scenarios that involve one year funding in simplest terms.

Any other discussion on the motion, Mr.

Callahan?

Did you have a question about what we're about to vote on?

All right, Mr.

Miller, call a roll.

Mr.

Callahan.

Hi, Ms.

Gramscy Smith.

Hi, Ms.

Queer Tech.

Hi, Ms.

Laird.

Hi, Ms.

Leon.

Hi.

And Mr.

Cologne.

I passed the seven-zero.

So amendments one, three, and five are no longer in the group.

They're no longer being considered.

So the group that we're still discussing are amendments two, four, and six, which are essentially the six-month funding scenarios provided by councilwoman Cramsey Smith.

Any further discussion on the group of amendments, Mr.

Callahan?

Uh Mr.

Klein, I I just have a quick question too, though.

Did the mayor tell you that if we council funded the positions, he wouldn't hire the additional staff?

No, I I have not had a conversation with the mayor, but just understanding budgets and the division of powers and the form of government Bethel has and administrations that that that discussion has not been had.

I mean, I think Mr.

I'm just curious.

No, and I would share with you, we have not had that discussion.

I think Mr.

Evans just shared the administration's perspective, though, as it related to what their plan was.

I I wish he was here to answer the question, but I would find it very hard to believe that if if if it was council's will to uh fund it, that I would hope that the administration would fund those positions and not um stab us in the back.

I mean, I mean, that's what I uh that's what I would hope, you know.

And I would say hope is not a strategy.

Yeah, well, I know, especially with this guy.

Well, and also that it's not necessarily stabbing the back.

It's uh it's a clear to that's previous administrations, this administration, next administration.

I don't know.

This government subdivision, that one like a strong air form of government.

I don't ever chief executive.

I know, but I don't ever remember.

I've been around a long time.

administration would fund those positions and not um established in the back i mean i mean that's what i uh that's what i would hope you know and i would say hope is not a strategy yeah well i know especially with this guy well and also that it's not necessarily stabbing the back it's it's a clear to that's previous administrations this administration next administration i don't know this government subdivision that one like a strong air form of government i don't ever chief executive i know but i don't ever remember i've been around a long time i don't ever remember council funding positions and a mayor not using those funds to hire those people that that that i mean this is an equal branch of government to the mayor so i mean i don't want to get in a i i understand i just had a quick question whether he actually told you that mr evans the sixty thousand dollar study is that in this year's budget i mean in 2026's budget no where where is that money coming from we're working on it now we don't have anything we'll bring up we're gonna pop an ammo see how money just pops up in a couple right so well and at the end of any given year there's free money is savings there there's money there some years there's not yeah and no no let me come complete this when you go each year to get to the end of the year like I I can make maybe examples on a personal level too but we get to the last week of December is only one left then you can look around and see if there's funding here or not but we would you project the beginning of the year you don't know that so in January February March everyone no I don't know would I have moved uh attempted to transfer money for study in July and come do then no but in December with one payroll left we just made our 25th out of 26 payrolls that goes tomorrow there's so little time left then we can make an adjustment but we can't plan that all of next year that that's going to happen because some years you get to the end medical is over budget gasoline you uh ukrains invaded it goes over and we're we're upside down yep so it's 5050 so i you know that's not the way we budget around here but all right so right now at the end of this year we have a 26 000 26 million dollar cash bounce um where we have money i don't know where we're at now because we have all we i it's I don't want to quote you today i mean the last year's not over just the last two weeks our total medical was six hundred and two thousand for a two week medical so as of now though I mean we're I don't know to the best of your knowledge I don't honestly know there's still a lot we have to well a lot of moving parts we have to I I think what you stated the other day was it was either 23 or 26 million let's let's just I'll go with the lower number three was the it was 26 was um 20 2023 29 was 2024 29 million was 2020 2004 20 2024 was 29 million and of that 29 million we're using 10 million of that we already in non utility as capital funding for um 2026 through 2029 is that correct in this budget yeah in this budget that gets us down to 20 million again for year end which was um recommended by gfo and um that is the correct amount for bond rating agencies right no i appreciate that i just want to i want to bring up an article here so uh mr evans when you were uh serving in the same capacity under mayor donchez um you uh there's an article and and i'm reading rightland officials hope to sell the casino was gonna bring in five point nine million dollars in cash windfall and you had said that uh for over a year and then eventually we got 317 000 that was a huge yeah difference yeah so then the administration you uh proposed at that time um to to tap i'm gonna read it here to what to to here i'll read it now the administration has crafted a plan to still tackle some of the big ticket items that keep getting kicked down the road by tapping it's 15 million dollar rainy day fund that was that was in the paper okay and then another 1.48 million left over from its nine 911 uh center consolidation on Tuesday evening Bethlehem's council finance committee heard the pitch to fund 3.98 million three point almost four million dollars to these projects um some of it was for street paving and a variety of other things and and and you had proposed that to full council to move three point nine eight million dollars from the the it's saying in here it's my it's not my term the rainy day fund okay it's not my that was no it wasn't your quote okay but this this is your quote all right the city typically borrows five million dollars every year to tackle capital repairs such as a cost rise from the money doesn't go that far said evans Eric Evans city business administrator we at that time at the end of the year took almost four million dollars from our rainy day fund okay from our cash bound three four million okay this is here critical condition this is a rainy day in the 331 thousand dollars is a small small percentage of our uh cash bounce compared to what it was it was only 15 million back then and that's that's your statement not mine so we took out of a 50 Mr Callahan is this part I don't mean interrupt you is this part of this amendment or a future amendment that you're gonna propose because we're still on the group that that councilman I just don't want to I don't want you to go so far down the road and then have you repeat yourself later I don't mind repeating myself you know that yeah but I I think well and again for the purposes of people here they're here to hear us vote and see what what's decided.

And that's that's your statement, not mine.

So we took out of a 50 Mr.

Callahan.

Is this part?

I don't mean to interrupt you.

Is this part of this amendment or a future amendment that you're gonna propose?

Because we're still on the group that that councilwoman, I just don't want to I don't want you to go so far down the road and then have you repeat yourself later.

Right.

I don't mind repeating myself, you know that yeah, but I I think well, and again, for the purposes of people here, they're here to hear us vote and see what what's decided.

Okay, so let me I'll I'll bring that up.

Okay, so anyways, um so there's so uh later on.

Um, I'm gonna propose about moving 60,000 hours from the study since it's already you're gonna find it somewhere.

We don't have to find it now because if we I think it's more important.

Again, that's a later on action, Mr.

Callaghan.

So um the um can I ask about uh or or should I wait on this?

How much and if you don't have the number, maybe you guys can calculate now how much of a millage rate would we have to increase our millage rate to raise 331,000.

Um if you can work on it, I don't know.

I would say that's not relevant to what what councilwoman Cramps are.

I just want to give them some time so they have the number eventually.

All right, you know, like within like a half hour, half hour.

Yeah, continue with this group, Mr.

Callahan.

Yeah, um we don't have the time before we vote on this.

I just want to say this.

Okay.

This is to all the council members here.

This is our budget.

This is our main priority.

He proposes it, administration proposes it.

It's our money to budget, it's not his budget, it's our budget.

We had we have a department here that has been struggling and stressed out, and they're telling us not only by their words, but by their actions that they don't even want the overtime anymore.

They're overworked, they're being forced 28 times in three months in the last three months.

They were forced to do overtime.

And we're gonna, if we just sit here and keep on telling them and thumb our nose at them, say, listen, me, we can't find the 331,000.

Keep working, keep if you don't like it tough.

It it's under the law, it's mandatory.

That's a hell of a thing to tell our department.

So I I would hope before we vote on this, that we all seriously think about what they're telling us and look at the data.

Look what just happened last week.

We are not this city, without a doubt.

The bottom line is we don't have enough of our resources to staff our own city properly.

That's the bottom line.

And and I think we I'm not mistaken, but I think there's a fireman here that was forced to do mandatory overtime six to eight times already.

Six to eight times, forced to.

And Mr.

Evans knows this as a school teacher, uh, policeman, fireman, EMS.

When you get near the end of your career, you want it, you want overtime.

They don't want it, they're being forced to do it.

And it's all right, and we're gonna sit here and can't find 331,000, but we can afford a um a community uh um uh coordinator.

That's a luxury.

This is not a luxury, and shame on us if we don't find a way to find a 331,000 for this group.

They're telling us not only by their actions in and rejecting the overtime, but be they're being forced to it.

How would you like that if your boss did that?

It's not it's not it's not up to you, it's mandatory.

You don't like it, leave.

That's what they're saying.

Please let's work together and find this money.

It's 331,000.

It's nothing.

We could on the overtime alone.

There's 500,000 in here.

Every year he comes up with another six, seven hundred thousand dollars somewhere.

He's coming up with another sixty thousand dollars for for for the uh a study.

You tell me we can't find three hundred and thirty-one thousand dollars to resolve this, or we're gonna say, hey, screw you and keep working your mandatory overtime.

If you don't like it, tough.

That's what we're telling them.

Please help me help her, help all of us, help them relieve this stress from their department.

We're talking a fraction of the budget, Mr.

Callahan.

I think that point has been made.

Thank you.

I don't want to interrupt you, but I want to give other people.

Is there anyone else who hasn't spoken twice who wants to have the floor?

Councilwoman Laird.

Yes.

Um, so I'd like to come back to that council as a whole has been working for weeks on trying to find money.

Councilwoman Cramcy Smith knows that we were up until 11, 12 at night, texting back and forth, looking at different budget lines.

Solicitor Stewart knows that we sent dozens of questions over the past few weeks.

Councilwoman Cremsey Smith is the only person who met the deadline to submit amendments.

And while it doesn't seem that they are able to stand, unfortunately.

Because like I said, I do support adding positions even prior to an administrative study, because I do find it hard to believe that it won't recommend some increase in staffing, even if it's not the full amount.

It does not appear that there is a legally viable way to do that in the budget season.

But once we move past these specific amendments that unfortunately do not appear to be able to stand, there may be ideas to consider that would expend extend beyond the budget season.

But to say we need to work together is a disservice to the work that everyone up here has done.

And to councilwoman Crampsy Smith, who submitted amendments by the deadline.

We can't take from the two million dollar golf fund.

I learned that.

It infuriates me that we can't.

But show up and do the work, find the money together on the timeline that we have, and then we can solve the problem.

But you know, and and I would like to thank councilwoman Cramsy Smith for regardless of how the vote turns out, doing all of the work that you did.

Any other I want to thank you for assisting me like you did in responding.

I appreciate that.

Councilwoman Wilhelm.

Um thank you, Councilwoman Laird.

I fully agree with everything you said.

And since it seems like we're getting close to the vote, I just really want to take a moment to share some of my thoughts again as we approach the vote.

First, I actually want to thank all of the individuals, and I see that many of them have left.

Um for various reasons, just making observations at their their choice and when they chose to step out, but I hope they're still paying attention.

I want to thank all the individuals in the department with whom I've had the opportunity to speak, not microphone to microphone, but human to human.

You know who you are.

I'm grateful for that time.

We had honest conversations and uh we both heard and shared perspectives respectfully.

I'm very grateful for that.

I want to thank you, all of you, fire nonprofit employees who are here, city administration, all of you for your service to the city, and thanks to everyone who came to speak tonight.

We've heard from solicitor Stewart, Chief Griffin, Mr.

Evans, and others that much of what's being proposed tonight is highly unadvisable or simply not feasible.

I don't need to restate all of those things.

We've been through them many, many times.

But there's another perspective I'd like to share, and that is that public safety doesn't exist in a silo in a city like Bethlehem.

It does not only live in the the budget lines of fire, police and EMS.

And so much of the work of DCD, for example, and I bring that up because that's the department that's in in this essence been targeted for cuts in these proposed amendments.

That the work of DCED is the work of preventing emergencies before they require an emergency response.

So we're looking at building code enforcement.

Blighton, thanks for moving over so I can see your face, Lou.

Blight remediation, supporting safe housing, providing extensive preventative health care services.

You too, Kyle.

Thanks.

This is work that helps avert conditions that put people at greater risk before fire police and EMS need to be called.

The point being that public safety is deeply interconnected, and it's strengthened when we honor and support that full ecosystem of services that keep our residents safe.

DC ED is a crucial component of that public safety ecosystem.

It's a partner to our first responders, not their competition.

And the very framing of these amendments, I regret that it pits the two against one another, but I will note that the only messaging I've heard from individuals in the department and including Chief Griffin is that neither the manufacturing of departmental competition nor the taking of funds from one department to fund another is your wish.

Um I I'm happy about that.

Um, the question in front of us tonight is not whether we value our firefighters or even tonight, whether additional staffing is needed.

That's not the question tonight.

It's been stated.

The question is whether we as a council should rush to hastily make a half million dollar change to the budget five weeks after this was brought to our attention by taking already allocated funding from departments and programs who are relying on it, including dollars that are budgeted to support organizations who are working on the front lines of housing, food access, public health and safety, and serving residents of the city who deserve to know the city stands with them in times of hardship.

And because of this last minute rush timing, the city's being asked to balance these proposed amendments by either using unavailable or legally unadvisable methods or by putting other essential community services at risk.

And I can't support that.

But fortunately, the alternative is not saying no outright to additional staffing.

It's not denying the importance and the value of the work of our fire department.

And we heard no lack of support for the fire department tonight.

As President Cologne said, I hope you do feel seen.

Even the people who came here to speak in support of the community recovery fund made a point to say we support you too.

And there are ways to do this.

This, the way this has happened is not that way.

Five weeks is not that way.

I would have spoken to 50 more of you if I could have, but I couldn't.

It this is this was not ideal.

And I said this to all of the individuals that I had the opportunity to speak with.

I wish so much that it had gone differently.

But saying no to these amendments is saying yes to moving forward with an existing plan, a plan for a comprehensive objective study that we expect to look deeply and holistically at all levels of the work.

Yes, staffing, but also apparatus, equipment and maintenance, staffing site locations, rather, response times and more.

That plan is is expected to move forward, a study that will be guided both by data and the lived expertise and experience of firefighters.

And it will give the city the information that it needs to make sustainable decisions that you deserve that also do not force cuts to vital community services or cut into necessary overtime or jeopardize our ability to apply for outside funding.

So I think even Ms.

Cramsy Smith, you were also forced to work at a very rapid speed.

And you had to retract three of the amendments you proposed because of that.

I wish that you had had more time.

I wish that we had had more time to discuss this, to deliberate, to facilitate productive conversations.

I don't know what happened at the negotiation table.

I wasn't there, but I know that whatever happened, it devolved quickly and recently.

And that is not ideal.

So for all the reasons discussed this evening and all the things that I've articulated in my statements, I can't support these amendments tonight.

I think that's obvious, but I will be supporting a response by not supporting these amendments, supporting a responsible process for determining sustainable solutions for your department needs and for maintaining the full network of services that keep our residents safe.

And that's how I feel about this.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Any other discussion again, we're on amendments two, four, and six as a group.

Any further discussion?

Council.

Councilwoman Leo.

Um, I want to thank Councilwoman Cramps Crampsley Smith for retracting the three amendments that were the year-long thing.

But I do think that it does shine a light on something that councilwoman Laird and Councilman Wilm Helm have said about the the compressed timeline of this.

We know that we cannot change the first half of the year.

There's there's nothing that we can do to change the first half of the year.

We've talked about it when it comes to policy or to positions to the academy to all that stuff.

There's we need to figure out a problem.

Like we need to figure out a solution to this problem.

It does not need to be in a compressed timeline.

A compressed timeline is not going to give you a good sustainable solution.

It's going to give you a solution like safer, which last time we used safer the positions went through attrition anyway.

We want positions that we can give you that sustain that we you don't have to get cut in two years because we don't have the money for it.

It's like I we want to do right by you.

And as the gentleman who left said, the last time I asked, do we need firefighters?

I was told no.

I have asked four questions in the time I've been on council.

How's the apparatus?

Apparatus sucks.

First year did apparatus.

Uh, how's academy?

Academy sucks, so we streamlined academy.

Um, and I thought we were good.

Uh, and I didn't know that we weren't good until about five weeks ago.

And I want the opportunity to make it good, but I need time to make it right, right and sustainable, so you don't have to worry about four people that you hire that might fall through attrition anyway.

So I just yeah.

Any other discussion for members of council.

Seeing none, uh, I'll just conclude with a again.

I also want to share my thanks to councilwoman for and I've already stated how I'm gonna vote, but it it's not light work to put these amendments together and have a good faith effort.

And as I encouraged everyone beyond two weeks ago to use their resources, our solicitor, Mr.

Miller, and such, and one member of council who who has stated a goal here tonight, submitted amendments.

So I that that says something itself.

But if there's no further discussion, Mr.

Miller, I'm gonna ask you a call to roll on the group of amendments two, four, and six.

Mr.

Callahan.

Aye.

Ms.

Gramscy Smith.

Aye.

Ms.

Quiet.

Nay.

Ms.

Liam.

Nay.

Ms.

Wilhelm.

Nay.

And Mr.

Cologne.

Nay.

The group fails to four with five against.

Bear with me one second.

So that concludes our agenda for this evening.

I will ask, as has already been discussed, are there any further motions that anyone wants to introduce on the floor for the budget this evening?

Mr.

Callahan.

Now I will I will ask, just like councilwoman Gramsci Smith did.

If you're introducing any motions to reference the page that council's to look at the account and the amount, what we're increasing has to be balanced with what we're decreasing, five votes to increase, four votes to decrease.

So effectively, five votes are needed.

You have the floor, Mr.

Callahan.

Thank you.

I'm trying to come up with 331,000 dollars.

Mr.

Callahan, this is not a workshop.

I understand you want to come up with the votes, but let me speak.

I think you're being rude right now.

I apologize.

Yeah.

So in order to come up with the $331,000, I'm gonna propose um, and I understand Miss Wilhelm's uh comments at uh um uh unavailable funds and legally not possible.

Well, let's switch to the legally possible and available funds.

Um I propose taking uh a hundred and sixty-five thousand and five hundred dollars, move it from the the overtime fund for fire pay page number, Mr.

Callahan.

Uh 155.

And it's uh account 4000 three.

It's currently at 500,000, and I'd like to move 165,000.

Uh so that wouldn't leave a minute 334,000, 334, 3345 left in the overtime account, which was more than enough to get us through the beginning of the year.

So I want to move 165,000 five hundred dollars from the overtime fire fund, and then I want to move 165,000 500 from our cash balance.

We have uh in the past moved uh just recently with Mr.

Evans, uh $3.9 million dollars from our cash fund balance moving 165, 500 from the cash fund balance, it will not even be missed.

It is a minuscule amount of money.

So I'm not I don't want to deplete the overtime fund.

We're still gonna have 300 and uh 45,000 in there to get us through the first quarter and maybe the first half of the year.

I mean, the the administration only budgeted 500,000, and I'm gonna assume that they're providing uh a real budget, and so if 500,000 hours is gonna get us through a whole year, the remaining 365 should get us through at least three quarters of the year for overtime.

So I don't know if you need those page numbers again.

It's it's page 155 account number 4003.

I'd like to change that from 500,000 down to um what was the number I gave you there?

Three 334 334,500.

So we're moving 165,500.

And then I'm proposing moving a very, very small amount from our cash balance because again, I don't like raising taxes either.

Uh but I've only voted one time in 10 years to raise tax, and that was because our second year we were hurting from money and would have had to get rid of fire and police.

I think this is this is probably more of a of a dire time than it was uh eight years ago when I voted for this small small tax we use.

I do not vote for tax increases.

But this is dire.

When we have people doing mandatory overtime, I think it's it's it's so important right now for us to step up and do what's right, and I and all I'm trying to do is fund for uh four positions for the last six months of the year because according to um chief and many other people that I talked to, even if we have came up with the money right now, it would not be a we wouldn't be able to staff those four firemen until June or July.

At least we're giving them some hope and light at the end of the tunnel that hey, help's coming in July.

Stay there, stick with us.

We're gonna help you.

And in when when the in the summer come the beginning of summertime comes, there's help on the way.

Mr.

Callahan, I need clarification on something.

Yes, you you want to add 165,500 from the cash balance, correct?

Correct.

Where where are we adding that into the four fire uh positions?

I want to add those are those are and Mr.

Mr.

Evans could correct me, those are expenditures on page 155.

So where doesn't that have to go into revenue somewhere?

Go to the revenue side, oh oh one a there's not an account in the budget right now, so it would be uh oh one a three what page are you referencing this because it's not in the budget?

There's no cash used in the budget, yeah.

For obvious reasons, but we have this proposal would add the line, so it'd be a new account.

So where would you want to you have you'd have to I don't know the whatever account he took the 3.9 million from years ago?

But we're talking but that it has to be capital account, by the way.

For any of your projects not to hire new people I'll speak to that.

Should we discuss the amendment?

But the there has to be a corresponding revenue line item, Mr.

Callahan.

What would it be?

What would it be?

I haven't looked at these amendments, Mr.

Callahan.

You're writing them down as we're talking.

What what what account would it go to?

What do we have to add it on on to page one 150 uh five as four additional firefighters?

Mr.

Callahan, 155 is the expenditures, right?

We'd have to put it somewhere in revenue.

Where would we put it?

If we move the 165,000, 500 hours from overtime, what account do you suggest we move it into?

If it's council's will, it I would say it's your amendment, Mr.

Callahan.

But I'll allow them I don't know.

I don't know.

I I don't, it's not it's I'm not the I'm not the budget.

I'm proposing to move 165.

You tell me where it's got to go.

That's what I hoped four days ago.

Are they on proposals would do?

Here uh they weren't due.

We've always been allowed to do this, and I asked for permission many, many uh uh days ago.

If they didn't tell you, yeah, that's right.

So I'm asking you where should we put it?

Uh well there are the positions for part of a year, so right?

Is this six months, six hours?

So it's good.

It's gonna be mixed for us to put together it's gonna be a couple minutes uh put together because you have moving what is parts you're adding cash as a revenue.

You you are decreasing in expense of overtime.

I mean, I president Clinton comment on that.

Do I add my editorial on the case?

I have the floor right now.

What are we doing?

So we I'm asking if I have the floor.

I'm asking if I can ask the question.

I guess is there Mr.

Callahan and Miss Wilhelm?

I don't even try to be polite, Mr.

Callahan.

Yeah, I had put a memo out and advised everyone over two weeks ago right to get amendments together as a courtesy to Mr.

Miller, right?

And all of council, as councilwoman Cramsy Smith did.

I so now we are purpose and and well, congratulations.

Right, because all you've done is created confusion in a room.

No, it's not where where you are listening.

This is this is not that big of a deal.

It's a it's a budget transfer.

And where we're doing this all the time.

Where are you proposing we amend?

You're you're the expert, you're the business manager.

Where would it be pro where would we move it to?

There's there's a bunch of different places because if you're hiring, it's gonna be under salaries, right?

Um salaries, medical, pension.

Yeah, is that item 4,000 or one?

It'll be four or five different different accounts.

That look at the accounts that Mr.

Cram De Smith used.

Are you using the same four?

So page 155.

No, no, don't look look to her amendments.

That's that they just voted on to uh okay.

Amendment two, four, or six at the bottom.

Which one is that?

Two carbon seventy zero five training medical.

So there's gonna be eighty thousand dollars.

You know, there's there's two transfers for 1655.

You with me?

Yeah, okay.

80,000 goes into the academy for four firefighters, 121,346 goes in the salary for four firefighters, ten thousand four hundred and six goes to promote the the four firefighters to lieutenant, fifty-two thousand one hundred and ten goes to medical fifty-seven thousand, four eighty-two goes to pension, and ten thousand one hundred and thirty-five dollars goes to 27th pay in 2026.

Is that good enough?

Thank you.

I I look I'll defer now.

Can you represent can you restate sure the the re restate what you're motioning for, Mr.

I am I am proposing that we move it up?

Yeah, I know that we change on page 155 that we change line item 4003 over time from 500,000 dollars down to 334, 500, which is a difference of 165,500, and then I'm proposing moving 165,500 from the cash balance to the uh to add in to the money moved over from the overtime fund to the academy for the four fire.

You want me to repeat these again?

These numbers eighty thousand dollars to to the academy.

It it's actually the same exact uh bottom part of Miss Crampsy Smith's amendment too.

Okay, it's I mean everybody has that there, so you can half from fire overtime, half from cash, right?

Okay, right.

Understood.

So half and it still leaves uh a substantial amount of money in overtime, and as the years going on, I I think the 334,000 hours left in overtime.

So I just want to clarify you're making a motion.

There has to be a second for discussion, right?

So is that your motion, Mr.

Call?

It is, thank you.

Is there a second to Mr.

Callahan's motion?

Second uh yeah, I second that motion.

Okay, now it's open for discussion, Ms.

Callahan.

I complete your thoughts, please.

I I I neglected 479 dollars.

I had it at 331,000.

So I've got it, I gotta come up with the extra 400 and what is it again?

So are you amending your motion, Mr.

Calhan?

I am you want to come over to your cash.

Uh I'll take it from overtime.

How much extra is it?

349.

479.

All right, so here we go.

Mr.

Miller, you ready?

Uh Mr.

Callahan, hang on.

I want to make sure.

So there was a motion, it was seconded.

Now we're amending the motion.

Right.

So are you I want to withdraw, I want to withdraw the motion.

Okay, re restate your right.

We don't need to vote on that right now.

Right.

I didn't get a second, yeah.

Council, regardless, uh, you're I'm gonna consider a motion withdrawn.

Okay, thank you.

You could restate I want to move 165,000 nine hundred and seventy-nine dollars or four hundred and seventy-nine dollars, one six five four seven nine.

From the overtime fund, which is on page one fifty-five, and it's line item four zero zero three.

And we're going to reduce it 1657.

And that leaves the overtime fireman budget for the beginning of the year, which should get us through the first six months at 334, 521.

So that's the overtime change.

Mr.

Miller, do you need me to change those or repeat it?

Yes, please.

All right.

It's all right.

Just the last figure.

The I want to move it from 500,000.

I want to move 165,000.

It's 979.

My bad.

979.

165,000.

He wants to reduce it.

Why 979?

You just changed it again.

979.

979, 165, 979.

And then that leaves 334,000.

21 in the overtime budget.

And then 165,000 from the cash balance.

It's 165,500.

I'm sorry.

165,500 from the cash balance into those four funds that are listed on amendment two under Grace Crampsy Smith's um amendment two.

So to clarify the academy for four firefighters 80,000, salary for four firefighters six months, 121346, promote four to lieutenant for six months, 10406, medical 52110, pension 57, 482, 26th pay, 27th pay in 2026, 10,135.

Correct.

And that's a total of 331, 479 dollars.

Mr.

Callahan restated his motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by councilwoman Cramsy Smith.

Discussion, Mr.

Callahan, I'll let I'll give you the floor because you brought the motion for it.

Listen, I this is all this has been stressful for everybody.

I I get it.

But let's step up the small amount of money.

And helps on the way.

And we're gonna take a small amount, a sliver amount of a cash balance, which a few years ago was 15 million.

And I don't know.

I I know it's I um Mr.

Evans.

I think I think they want 15%, correct?

Ideally, and for 16.78.

Yeah, so we're already over the 15%, right?

So we have the money there, it's a small amount of money, and we're trying to tell a department the city keeps growing and you keep getting smaller.

We're trying to help you out.

With we don't have the ability, or we actually do.

Uh whenever community and economic development wants to add people, they come and propose to us to add fees, and this is what we're trying to do.

And if this doesn't go by, if this doesn't pass, this is the last resort, and I don't even want to do this, but it this is how desperate is.

I would want to propose a small tax increase.

And if you could figure out how much uh uh uh increasing our millage rate would be, which is a last resort, but for us to have to raise taxes even uh 25 hours on each family or 40 dollars, I don't know what it would be.

It's ridiculous that we can't, you know, that we can't come together and find this money.

It's sitting there, you know.

He he's gonna find sixty thousand dollars for a fund somewhere, he's gonna find six hundred thousand dollars to you know, for the the remaining amount of the overtime um bill, which they only budgeted 500, they only budgeted 500 for next year.

They're gonna come up with another 500,000 from somewhere.

So please let's work together.

This is not this is not a big ask.

This is not a big ask.

So that's my spiel.

Understood.

Further discussion on Mr.

Callahan's proposed amendment on the floor.

Councilwoman.

Thank you.

Um I just hate to go over this again, but um just to clarify the uh eight that we have coming into the academy in January are going to start drawing salary, correct?

Correct.

Yes, but they won't be actually working shifts.

Right.

Not until they graduate, until they're available, right?

Sometime after the graduate assimilate from the academy, assume they all graduate from the academy, make it through and enter the ranks.

So this is actually a kind of a tricky moment for us when you look at taking money from the overtime budget, because we are going to be drawing down on those eight salaries uh at this which are for to cover vacancies, current vacancies, correct?

Yes, yes.

So right now we've been having salary savings because of those vacancies, but as of January, when they start in the academy, we are no longer going to be having salary savings from those eight positions.

Okay.

That's correct.

So if we reduce the overtime budget, excuse me, I'm talking.

Excuse me, I'm talking.

Thank you.

If we reduce the overtime uh budget, we don't have we won't have necessarily the funds in salary to replenish the overtime.

And let me make this crystal clear for the 80th time tonight that the way Mr.

Evans finds money for overtime is from the salaries of vacant positions in the fire department.

It is a balancing act we all recognize, okay.

And we've we've talked about, yes, it would be great if we could have more right firefighters right now.

We're going to train, you know, eight so that we get to our current full complement.

But if we start paying cadets, and we're drawing that salary down, but we still need overtime because they can't work shifts yet.

This is actually the most delicate moment for us in terms of the balance between salary and overtime in the um department.

Mr.

Evans, can you I mean, I could be wrong, but if you could just either clarify what I said or no, you you say it very clearly and correctly.

Okay, thank you.

Because that is that is where the money magically comes from, is from the salary line, right?

Yes and yes, and it's there because we're not drawing it because those positions are empty.

However, as of January, those positions will no longer be empty, and we will be paying people who are not actually fighting fires yet, but we are paying them.

Correct?

That's correct.

Thank you.

As to the cash balance, so my question for you is um generally speaking, from what I understand from discussions and and all of that.

Um, the cash balance, of course, you need that 16.578%, whatever is what's the generally recommended for our bond rating to keep our bond rating strong.

And then there may be some um left over, but there's also the again that carryover where we've got the first quarter, we're gonna be drawing down until we start getting our property taxes in, right?

So you're making that estimate all the time.

It's a dance, and on top of that, um, we're in we have we're um we qualified for all these grants, and we have to spend the money up front and then wait for reimbursements.

And last in 2025, um, we were waiting for the general fund support pace for the um expenses up front, and then we get reimbursed and do a do to do from from to right and non-utility, and at one point the non-utility owed the general fund over six million dollars, so we need a like a little buffer there too to support all these projects that we are currently engaged in, right?

Because again, as you said, a lot of grants, and this is very common, are on a reimbursement basis, especially the big federal ones and the big state ones, it's very typical.

And so again, having cash balance is you know part of that dance between uh having it in the in the capital fund, moving it into general fund, etc.

Thank you for clarifying that.

And so generally speaking, when we do have things, we do have money left over out of all of that.

We we tend to put it into um, you know, if the non- non-utility capital fund, and then we move it in for one-time purposes for projects for major projects for major expenditures like fire engines for if the revenue is a one-time um occurrence, it wasn't budgeted, it's like a large, like a deed transfer tax that we didn't expect.

Right.

We'll put that aside.

It was prudent to start it aside so we wouldn't have to borrow.

Right.

And that was the other piece is that we have not borrowed in in quite a few years now.

2019.

Right.

And so by not borrowing, we're not adding to our debt service.

Yes, and we're saving on interest.

Right.